As far back as we can recall, photography has often been considered a direct representation of reality. However, the truth is much more complicated when we go deeper to consider the underlying issue. The problem is not just about changing reality through Photoshop manipulation or creating images with AI. Instead, I believe that our social expectations and perceptions have fundamentally changed the way we view and interpret photographs.
Take documentary photos, for example. By definition, it is a genre of photography that aims to document real-life events, environments, and situations honestly and objectively. But in reality, many of these images are staged or controlled to some degree. For example, adding a light source to better expose a subject in backlit conditions may raise questions about the authenticity of the image. The issue here is not about changes in manipulation but about whether the image actually represents reality.
When a partially staged scene is presented as a documentary or when the presentation of reality is altered, it challenges our perception of truth. But we should also note that no one has the same perspective. People who are color blind may not be able to see certain colors, or people with cataracts may see the world with less contrast. So how do we know whose views accurately represent reality?
This brings the discussion to the place of tonal adjustments. Local tone adjustments, such as dodge and burn, have been used since the early days of photography. Changing exposure to highlight certain elements or adjusting color tones can affect how the audience perceives a scene. Even viewing images on a screen that is poorly calibrated or printed with a limited color gamut is enough to distort reality. Not to mention the decision to show an image in black and white also affects its emotional impact. So, are all of these elements considered image manipulation? The choice of medium has some degree of influence on how we view images. These elements alone are enough to highlight the gray area between manipulation and performance.
Photography, by its nature, is expected to be an accurate representation of reality. A photo of an apple is instantly recognizable, even if size and spatial dimension are not perfectly conveyed. Likewise, a photograph of an event is generally accepted as a true record of that moment. However, in reality, framing and composition to a certain extent introduce inherent bias. The photographer decides what to include and exclude, which can leave out important context and alter the viewer’s perception.
Limiting yourself to only taking JPEG images with your camera won’t solve this problem either. The expectation that photos are exact replicas of reality is wrong from the start. Instead, one of the most attractive qualities of photography is its ability to make us believe in the authenticity of its content. This belief hinges on the suspension of disbelief, aided by perspective and lighting.
Traditionally, photojournalists have been responsible for depicting reality accurately. However, this quickly becomes subjective. What is reality and whose view do we believe? Each photo carries a message influenced by the photographer’s own thought process and perspective. This subjectivity means that no photograph can truly represent reality. Therefore, the focus must be on the underlying message it represents. Photographs are often thought to represent reality to a general audience, but trust issues arise when manipulated or manufactured images are presented as the truth.
In short, the challenge of depicting truth through photography is deeply rooted in our expectations and perceptions. No medium can be completely objective, and photographs are no exception, as they require processing and interpretation by the photographer influenced by the perspective of the observer. As viewers, we can only overcome this challenge by carefully considering the underlying message and context of each image. How do you interpret truth in photography and what influences your perception of reality?
