We can agree that cameras are not 'objective' in the sense that they would operate 'subject-independently', which is the philosophical sense of the word. This is because the what/how is based upon willfull behavior.
OTH, cameras are indeed subject-dependent instruments that have been created specifically to offer us realism. In this sense, they have easily replaced the hand-eye-marker-template depicitive-instrument; much as we use computers to do our calculations.
I likewise do not believe that it's useful to define something as 'objective' simply because we understand the physics of how it works. What might be said is that because photograpy can be understood as resting on principles of science, it has, by definition, a subject-independent basis.
Cameras can likewise be manipulated to offer us non-realism, which is the antechamber of art. To this end, I'm really not sure what is meant by saying that an intentionally-distorted lens might offer up 'objectivity'.
In any case, my own preference is to employ philosophy as a means of exposing the mythologies that we construct to contour our lives. We humans seem hard-wired to claim 'objectivity' in order to harden truth-claims of realism, and philosophers such as Searle, Cartwright, Fish, and Dworkin write in order to de-mystify such notions.
Defining the human process behind the employ of electrochemisry is not unlike, say, the understanding that legal 'persons' serving a specific purpose do not constitute real, live human beings. Without this form of understanding, we're all living in the conceptual cottonpatch.
BH
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:17:52 -0400
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ontology, transparency and the "disposable camera"
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> But the claim isn't about the eye, visual system, or reproducing vision.
> The first thing that a photographer has to learn is that the camera
> doesn't reproduce what we see: for example, the constancies don't work
> in a photo in the way they do in vision: so you take a picture and your
> subject turns out to be too small in the frame. The objectivity of the
> photography just is the systematic mechanical/chemical mapping of values
> from the world to the sensor or film. There are conventions of
> camera/lens/film/sensor design but any of these provides just as much
> objectivity, a wildly anamorphic lens as much as a standard lens.
>
> j
>
> On 10/29/10 1:04 PM, bill harris wrote:
> > --_05163c74-9a97-4118-813c-283ca3383045_
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> >
> > Here's a small example-- on the level of simple=2C accepted technique-- as =
> > to how the camera cannot capture the 'rteality' of the eye.
> > =20
> > Eye focal length is about 35mm. At that perspective=2C what the eye sees is=
> > =2C among other things=2C a hugely oversized nose. So the brain readjusts t=
> > he perspective=3B which is to say that the eye is only one part of the visu=
> > al system.
> > =20
> > But as we speak=2C cameras are yet to be fitted with brains that might dist=
> > inguish=2C say=2C the intentional detailing of a face from reading the keyp=
> > ad in a cellphone.
> > =20
> > Therefore=2C to portray a realistic face=2C the shooter must adjust back th=
> > e focal length to the 60-80 range. Photographic reality=2C from the basics=
> > =2C relies on human convention and adjustment.
> > =20
> > BH
> >
> > =20
> > =20
> >> Date: Thu=2C 28 Oct 2010 13:44:05 -0400
> >> From: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: ontology=2C transparency and the "disposable camera"
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> =20
> >> On 10/28/10 1:10 PM=2C William Brown wrote:
> >>> Photos are not necessarily 'transparent' indices of a reality=2C then=
> > =2C
> >>> but they do have (potentially) a photonic-indexical link across time
> >>> to what was in front of the lens at the time of image capture.
> >> What you call "photonic-indexical link" seems pretty much to be what is=20
> >> meant by transparency. Though I guess that there can be non-photonic=20
> >> photo-like indexicality=2C like a kind of Alexieff-type pin animation in=
> > =20
> >> which the pins were pushed by the actual objects represented.
> >> =20
> >>> My contention would be
> >>> that photography can 'echo' real photons.
> >> The metaphysics of light lives on in some filmmakers. I've seen=20
> >> filmmakers hold up a strip of camera-original reversal stock and exclaim=
> > =20
> >> that the photons the bounced off the subject directly hit these very=20
> >> frames. This desire for getting as close to unmediated representation as=
> > =20
> >> possible goes deep. The best painted pictures of the Virgin were those=20
> >> believed to be done from life by Luke (an amazing artist who anticipated=
> > =20
> >> medieval styles by centuries) but even better were those icons said to=20
> >> be made miraculously with human hands or with mechanical contact like=20
> >> Veronica's veil and the shroud of Turin. (Right about the time that the=20
> >> chemical tests of the shroud came out I went up to the US shroud=20
> >> headquarters in the Bronx to get publishable pictures and permission to=20
> >> publish them=3B given the debunking of the time the priest in charge was=
> > =20
> >> initially skeptical but when I explained that I was writing about=20
> >> photography he saw the point immediately.)
> >> =20
> >> I suspect that the uncanniness of all images is also based=2C as you say=
> > =2C=20
> >> on the fact that they are processed by the visual system and its=20
> >> recognitional subsystems in the same way that ordinary perception is.=20
> >> "Seeing is believing" may be the default working principle of visual=20
> >> belief production but this default can be over-ridden by awareness that=20
> >> we are seeing an image rather than the actual object. But we are also=20
> >> aware of how different images are made=2C so the over-riding process may=
> > =20
> >> be weaker for photos: we get a sense of real contact=2C perhaps=2C but no=
> > t=20
> >> to the point where we try to carry on a conversation. The uncanniness=20
> >> may be retained despite the over-riding=2C just as we still have a sense=
> > =20
> >> the the Muller-Lyer lines are different sizes even after we come to know=
> > =20
> >> and believe that they are the same size.
> >> =20
> >> j
> >> =20
> >> *
> >> *
> >> Film-Philosophy
> >> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you ar=
> > e replying to
> >> To leave=2C send the message: leave film-philosophy to: jiscmail@jiscmail=
> > .ac.uk
> >> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> >> For technical help email: [log in to unmask] not the salon
> >> *
> >> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> >> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> >> **
> > =
> >
> > *
> > *
> > Film-Philosophy
> > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
> > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> > Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> > For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
> > *
> > Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> > Contact: [log in to unmask]
> > **
> >
> > --_05163c74-9a97-4118-813c-283ca3383045_
> > Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > <html>
> > <head>
> > <style><!--
> > .hmmessage P
> > {
> > margin:0px=3B
> > padding:0px
> > }
> > body.hmmessage
> > {
> > font-size: 10pt=3B
> > font-family:Tahoma
> > }
> > --></style>
> > </head>
> > <body class=3D'hmmessage'>
> > Here's a small example-- on the level of simple=2C accepted technique--&nbs=
> > p=3Bas to how the camera =3Bcannot capture the 'rteality' of the eye.<B=
> > R>
> >  =3B<BR>
> > Eye focal length is =3Babout 35mm. At that perspective=2C =3Bwhat t=
> > he eye sees =3Bis=2C among other things=2C a hugely oversized nose. So =
> > the brain readjusts the perspective=3B which is to say that the eye is only=
> > one part of =3Bthe visual system.<BR>
> >  =3B<BR>
> > But as we speak=2C cameras are yet to be fitted with brains that might dist=
> > inguish=2C say=2C the intentional detailing of a face from reading the keyp=
> > ad in a cellphone.<BR>
> >  =3B<BR>
> > Therefore=2C to portray a realistic face=2C the shooter must adjust back th=
> > e focal length to the 60-80 range. Photographic reality=2C from the basics=
> > =2C =3Brelies on human convention and adjustment.<BR>
> >  =3B<BR>
> > BH<BR>
> >
> >  =3B<BR>
> >  =3B<BR>
> > >=3B Date: Thu=2C 28 Oct 2010 13:44:05 -0400<BR>>=3B From: jmatturr@EAR=
> > THLINK.NET<BR>>=3B Subject: Re: ontology=2C transparency and the "disposa=
> > ble camera"<BR>>=3B To: [log in to unmask]<BR>>=3B<BR>>=
> > =3B On 10/28/10 1:10 PM=2C William Brown wrote:<BR>>=3B>=3B Photos are=
> > not necessarily 'transparent' indices of a reality=2C then=2C<BR>>=3B&g=
> > t=3B but they do have (potentially) a photonic-indexical link across time<B=
> > R>>=3B>=3B to what was in front of the lens at the time of image captu=
> > re.<BR>>=3B What you call "photonic-indexical link" seems pretty much to =
> > be what is<BR>>=3B meant by transparency. Though I guess that there can =
> > be non-photonic<BR>>=3B photo-like indexicality=2C like a kind of Alexie=
> > ff-type pin animation in<BR>>=3B which the pins were pushed by the actua=
> > l objects represented.<BR>>=3B<BR>>=3B>=3B My contention would be<B=
> > R>>=3B>=3B that photography can 'echo' real photons.<BR>>=3B The met=
> > aphysics of light lives on in some filmmakers. I've seen<BR>>=3B filmmak=
> > ers hold up a strip of camera-original reversal stock and exclaim<BR>>=
> > =3B that the photons the bounced off the subject directly hit these very<B=
> > R>>=3B frames. This desire for getting as close to unmediated representat=
> > ion as<BR>>=3B possible goes deep. The best painted pictures of the Virg=
> > in were those<BR>>=3B believed to be done from life by Luke (an amazing =
> > artist who anticipated<BR>>=3B medieval styles by centuries) but even be=
> > tter were those icons said to<BR>>=3B be made miraculously with human ha=
> > nds or with mechanical contact like<BR>>=3B Veronica's veil and the shro=
> > ud of Turin. (Right about the time that the<BR>>=3B chemical tests of th=
> > e shroud came out I went up to the US shroud<BR>>=3B headquarters in the=
> > Bronx to get publishable pictures and permission to<BR>>=3B publish the=
> > m=3B given the debunking of the time the priest in charge was<BR>>=3B in=
> > itially skeptical but when I explained that I was writing about<BR>>=3B =
> > photography he saw the point immediately.)<BR>>=3B<BR>>=3B I suspect t=
> > hat the uncanniness of all images is also based=2C as you say=2C<BR>>=3B=
> > on the fact that they are processed by the visual system and its<BR>>=
> > =3B recognitional subsystems in the same way that ordinary perception is.<=
> > BR>>=3B "Seeing is believing" may be the default working principle of vis=
> > ual<BR>>=3B belief production but this default can be over-ridden by awa=
> > reness that<BR>>=3B we are seeing an image rather than the actual object=
> > . But we are also<BR>>=3B aware of how different images are made=2C so t=
> > he over-riding process may<BR>>=3B be weaker for photos: we get a sense =
> > of real contact=2C perhaps=2C but not<BR>>=3B to the point where we try =
> > to carry on a conversation. The uncanniness<BR>>=3B may be retained desp=
> > ite the over-riding=2C just as we still have a sense<BR>>=3B the the Mul=
> > ler-Lyer lines are different sizes even after we come to know<BR>>=3B an=
> > d believe that they are the same size.<BR>>=3B<BR>>=3B j<BR>>=3B<BR=
> >> >=3B *<BR>>=3B *<BR>>=3B Film-Philosophy<BR>>=3B After hitting 're=
> > ply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to<BR>&g=
> > t=3B To leave=2C send the message: leave film-philosophy to: jiscmail@jiscm=
> > ail.ac.uk<BR>>=3B Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosop=
> > hy.html<BR>>=3B For technical help email: [log in to unmask] not =
> > the salon<BR>>=3B *<BR>>=3B Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-phi=
> > losophy.com<BR>>=3B Contact: [log in to unmask]<BR>>=3B **<BR><=
> > BR> </body>
> > </html>=
> > *
> > *
> > Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon
> > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
> > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> > Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> > For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
> > *
> > Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> > Contact: [log in to unmask]
> > **
> >
> > --_05163c74-9a97-4118-813c-283ca3383045_--
> >
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
> *
> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> **
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
