Response to Icons as Fact, Fiction and Metaphor

            According to Philip Gefter in his 2009 essay Icons as Fact, Fiction and Metaphor, there are several cases in which wet or darkroom photography is not always a truthful representation of reality. Although he does not mention digital photography in any of the seven pages, there is an implied comparison being drawn between the two photographic manipulative techniques.

            Gefter made the valid statement that a photograph “comes as close as we get to witnessing an authentic moment with our own eyes while not actually being there,” which is quite true. Raw photographs often can come as close to reality as we can get in the art world. Sometimes a photographer merely shoots what he sees (thereby giving us a glimpse at the world through their eyes) but sometimes for artistic effect the little shutterbug decides to change the content in someway. Gefter provides several examples of photographers who altered the scene they were taking a picture of or recreated a pervious scene. These alterations, he argued, were neither lies nor the truth but rather an in-between in the form of a metaphor or poetic symbolic rendering of reality.

            In digital photography we often alter a snapshot to better illustrate the photograph’s purpose. Whether that means removing a person who is disrupting this purpose or adding someone in or merely adjusting the lighting, digital processes use a lot of the same ideas as darkroom photography but via programs like Adobe Photoshop. Now, the question is whether there is a difference between these digital and wet photographic processes. Arguably, both have the ability to alter the chosen picture’s composition. Gefter states that a picture “published in a newspaper is believed to be fact” whereas he suggests any advertising images are “understood to be fiction” in their alteration of the human figure.

            I personally do not think Gefter’s assumptions are fully accurate. Although he is valid in suggesting that whether a photo “needs” to be “real” or unaltered depends on its location or context, I think there are more factors in play. Every person has their own specific upbringings and assumptions about the world; they have their own unique set of eyes that see the colors of the world slightly differently from others view. Therefore, stating facts in black and white terms of newspapers are fact and ads are lies are not allowing for people who see different shades. There was a lot of outrage when people found out the amount of physical alterations that were made to models via Photoshop, so I think a more valid phrasing is that certain people expect a certain amount of “lies” for different picture presentations.

            I think when it comes down to it, the real changes we see produced by either photographic darkroom or digital processes is the simple idea of reinterpretation of reality. We all know photos are merely images and thus not truly real otherwise they wouldn’t be photographs. Unconsciously or consciously there are always alterations to any photograph as only a certain amount of the world is going to be represented, so the real difference between darkroom photography and digital processes is very minute. The techniques are different, but the concepts are very much the same. It all depends on how much is changed.