| I am often asked if the color of a specific photograph
              is real or not. My answer is always the same. Yes, it is real.
              The reaction from the person asking the question is usually one
              of disbelief. They beg to differ. To them the color is not real.
              To me it is real. Who is right? The answer is we are both right because in the absence of the
                actual subject to compare the photograph to we are left with
                our personal memories of this subject and, as we all know, memories
                are by nature subjective. Let me explain. Photographic representations can be divided in two categories
                when it comes to veracity in regards to the subject being photographed:
                Literal and subjective representations. Literal representations are images whose goal is to comes as
                close as is humanly possible in terms of representing the subject.
                The example I often take is having to photograph a box of Kellogg
                cornflakes as assignment while being hired and paid by the Kellogg's
                company. The expectations that are placed upon you, the photographer,
                is that you will photograph this box of cornflakes in the most
                literal manner possible so that when this photograph is used
                in an advertising viewers will be able to recognize this box
                and find it on the shelf of their local supermarket. The colors
                have to be right on and so does the shape, dimensions and overall
                appearance of the box. Furthermore, both customers and Kellogg's executives will compare
                the appearance of your photograph to that of an actual box of
                Kellogg corn flakes so that if the two differ in a significant
                manner you will be asked to re-photograph this box until you
                get as close to a perfect match as possible. This process is
                easy since the executives have both the box of cornflakes and
                your photograph side by side. In contrast take a look at the photograph above. How can you
                actually compare this photograph to the real subject, i.e. the
                Grand Canyon? There is no way that I can provide you with the
                real thing. And, if you go to the Grand Canyon yourself and take
                my photograph along with you, the weather will most likely be
                different on the day you are there than it was on the day I was
                there. Furthermore, and definitely more importantly, what does it matter?
                The goal here is not to sell boxes of cornflakes. The goal is
                to share my vision of the Grand Canyon. My goal, to return to
                the title of this essay, is not to be literal but, on the opposite,
                to be expressive. My goal is to express how I feel about the
                Grand Canyon on the particular day I photographed it. So, is it real? If you mean real in the sense of being a literal
                representation of the subject the answer is no. I made no attempt
                to duplicate the exact color of the rock formations, of the sky
                or of the grass and pebbles in the foreground. However, if you
                mean real in the sense of being faithful to my perception of
                the Grand Canyon the answer is yes, most definitely. One definition of fiction that I very much like goes like this: "Is
                it real? Yes. Did it happen? No." In other words, and according
                to this definition, fiction has all the qualities of reality
                with the exception that facts, characters and events are imaginary.
                Maybe this is how we should approach expressive photographic
            representations? 
   Note by Uwe Steinmueller First of all I clearly share Alain's view and
                want to thank him for opening this discussion.  He used the term "expressive" and I find this
                an important notion in the context of photography and especially
                color photography. Whole generations if film have been developed
                to provide the photographer with "expressive" colors. Nobody
                would use Velvia to reach a truthful color. In the digital world
                we are more on our own and have to create a personal and hopefully
                expressive color palette. Of course each artist (here photographer)
                will
                chose his/her own personal palette.  Venice, Italy 1977
 This is one of our earlier scans
                from Kodachrome 25 slide film. We love this photo and have a
                20" wide print in our hall way. We think that the colors are
                probably not truthful but definitely expressive. This picture
                shows the essence of this dead/living city: Venice. Could we
                check the facts in Venice? This is not possible as the scene
                is long gone. Either by renovation or further  	decay. We like to photograph many scene
                (e.g. rock patterns) in overcast light. This results in images
                like this without further processing:  Flat image
 For us this flat image does not
                represent the spirit and reason why we took that photo although
                it maybe very close to "real". We don't care whether it is
                real but want to recreate the scene as we anticipated it.  Some more contrast
 More contrast brings such photos
                to life.  Note on
              Printing: As you cannot see the right color on a screen
              and in small magnification you have to fine tune your colors with
              sample prints. Please share your own ideas or vision with
                us and the other readers by posting in our news groups.   |