A forest path at dusk and two hikers. In itself a rather trivial subject. But photographed with a hand-held camera and a long exposure time, a photographic image becomes an almost surreal image that has little to do with the perceived reality.
A question of perception
Many photographers think that photography shows the reality. Within certain limits, this is certainly true. But people and cameras perceive the same reality quite differently.
A long exposure time, as in the photo of the hikers, shows us something that we cannot perceive with our own eyes. Our brain always creates a clear and not blurred image even in low light conditions (even if there is no longer any color at some point with very little light…). The blurring and transparencies of the photo caused by the long exposure time are alien to our brain.
But even the opposite, namely a very short exposure time, is no longer compatible with our perception. Before the invention of photography, it was not clear how the legs of horses actually move when galloping. In historical paintings and drawings, the leg position is often completely different from what we know today. Our brains simply can’t resolve the rapid motion of galloping. Only photography has shown us how the motion sequence really is.
Ok, ok, this is a trotting horse, but you get the idea, right?
Shallow depth of field
A shallow depth of field also only came into the world through photography. Our eye/brain always perceives everything as sharp. The eye naturally has a shallow depth of field, but because it is constantly moving and constantly refocusing, the entire scene appears sharp to us. A photograph, on the other hand, shows a different depth of field depending on the aperture. The photo of the little lion was taken at f/4 and therefore has a shallow depth of field.
Photographers like to use this effect. But is this really reality? Or perhaps a photographic construct beyond reality?
Again, we should refer to paintings created before the invention of photography. All of these paintings have a continuous depth of field. The painters of earlier generations simply could not imagine the effect of a shallow depth of field.
Wide angle lens
Another example of the difference in perception between humans and cameras concerns the use of wide-angle lenses. As soon as the angle of view of a lens becomes significantly larger than the angle of view of the human eye, the resulting photos are no longer compatible with our perception. We can perceive a small section of a scene, i.e. “simulate” a telephoto lens, but we can only create a larger angle of view than that of the eye by moving our head. This head movement, however, does not produce the optical effect of a wide-angle lens.
This shot of St. Mark’s Square in Venice was taken with a 16mm lens (on full frame). The angle of view of this lens is much larger than the angle of view of the eye. Therefore, only the camera can perceive this scene.
Conclusion
The photographic depiction of reality is a noble goal. But it often (always?) fails because our personal perception and that of the camera are simply not identical.
Do you have any thoughts on this topic? Then please feel free to leave a comment, it is always appreciated.
Leave A Comment