View allAll Photos Tagged Perception
A photo inspired by Saul Leiter Retrospektive - an exhibition at the Kunstfoyer in Munich
[www.versicherungskammer-kulturstiftung.de/en/kunstfoyer/e...]:
Early street photography with reflections and segmentations
***
What you see first depends on the level of perception:
Working area at Munich, Marienhof with an artistic decoration on the surface of the hoarding.
What did You see first?
Comments welcome...
***
[CF_2019-09-04_113518(R)_EditCPP4(Ausschnitt3x2_3991x2661_Sch2).jpg]
Strobist: 1 nissin di8662 in front of the wine glass below the table it was placed on. Triggered using cactus v5s.
Nothing's ever right or wrong. It's merely a flow of thoughts: perception!
copyright, 2012, Ferran Cubedo.
SALE OF PRINTED ARTS > : society6.com/ferrancubedo/Perception-Nature_Framed-Print#...
There are things known and things unknown and in between are the doors of perception
14mm - ISO 800 - 1/50 - f11
One of my little side-projects: photographing doors, in a project I call "Doors of Perception" (yes, I am a fan of The Doors).
One of my little side-projects: photographing doors, in a project I call "Doors of Perception" (yes, I am a fan of The Doors).
"Every perception of colour is an illusion... we do not see colours as they really are. In our perception they alter one another."
-Joseph Albers
“How foolish of me to believe that it would be that easy. I had confused the appearance of trees and automobiles, and people with a reality itself, and believed that a photograph of these appearances to be a photograph of it. It is a melancholy truth that I will never be able to photograph it and can only fail. I am a reflection photographing other reflections within a reflection. To photograph reality is to photograph nothing.”
(Duane Michals)
With the invention of photography came a debate: is a photograph an accurate record of some real event, or is it an artistic interpretation? Now that photography is almost 200 years old, most people will agree that it can be both. Nevertheless, some of the controversies about manipulating an image have been intense, especially in photojournalism where the professional’s job is to capture reality as accurately as possible. Faking images can ruin your career, as it almost did to Arthur Rothstein, a documentary photographer for the Farm Security Administration during the American Dust Bowl era, who was accused of fraud because he moved a steer skull he found on a parched South Dakota pasture ten feet in order to compose a shot.
Fortunately, those of us who aren’t photojournalists don’t have to worry about such controversies. We’re not going to cut and paste a Supreme Court Justice into a shot of a Pro-Life Rally, unless we do it as a joke. But we will experience more subtle manifestations of that century old debate, especially when we work in those gray areas between realism and artistic interpretation. How much should I enhance the color of her eyes, or that sunset? If I remove that telephone pole coming out of Aunt Martha’s head, why not also take that nasty looking mole off her cheek, or at least minimize how the side-lighting makes it look like Mount Everest.
Criticisms of such actions sometimes stem from a prejudice against image editing computer programs. It’s fake manipulation, not real photography. Some photography contests won’t permit such post-processing. If the purpose of the contest is to test your skill in handling the camera, that’s one thing. But sometimes the restrictions are based on rather misguided or outdated notions of what “real” photography is.
The critics seem to forget that Ansel Adams spent hours in the darkroom fine-tuning his exposures. Or that digital cameras create a jpeg by running the raw data from the sensor through a proprietary algorithm. Technically speaking, isn’t that post-processing too?
The truth of the matter is that there is no one “reality” to capture in an image. Photographers select a reality by shooting this particular scene, and not that one. They shape that reality by using different cameras, lens, filters, film, aperture and shutter speed settings, dark room and Photoshop techniques. Even the hardcore, objective photojournalist might wonder whether to kneel down to shoot that military leader, in order to enhance his size and prominence, or shoot him from above to make him look short.
Did you ever notice how people can appear very different depending on the light, the colors around them, the angle from which you are viewing them, and very subtle changes in his or her body language and facial expression? Which is the “real” person? Which do you want to capture in a photograph, and what photographic tools and techniques will help you do that? Worrying about whether your effort involves too much “manipulation” will not help you answer these questions.
The eye adapts. What it considers normal or manipulated depends on what it’s used to. Work on a manipulated image long enough and it starts to look rather normal. If you look at a lot of surrealistic images and then switch to a realistic one, it will appear a little odd, maybe even unnaturally dull and lifeless. In the image above, the subject on the left appears quite normal. Upon closer inspection, you might see that her image is not normal at all, but a stylized watercolor effect. She only looks normal in the context of the other more unusually manipulated subjects. I showed my wife another photo that I had altered a lot in Photoshop and intended to use as the image to accompany this essay. My wife said, “But it doesn’t look manipulated.”
In the final analysis, we have no choice but to manipulate an image in some way, shape, or form, either inside the camera or out – the distinction is quite arbitrary. So if you like the manipulation, if it expresses something you want to say, if it serves that artistic construction of reality that we call “composition” – then ignore the critics and do it.
* This image and essay are part of a book on Photographic Psychology that I’m writing within Flickr. Please see the set description.
One of my little side-projects: photographing doors, in a project I call "Doors of Perception" (yes, I am a fan of The Doors).
Flash Set-up:
Canon Speedlite 580EXII @ 1/32 power, diffused through 5cm diameter snoot (paper funnel/tissue paper), 50mm zoom, 50cm cm above, 5cm in front, 10cm left.
triggered by Yongnuo RF-602 Tx/Rx.
EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM @ f/11, 4s, ISO 100
Original Illusion here:
“Let me tell you something about perceptions: If a public safety officer pulls up right now and sees us talking, he’s going to see a black homeless guy talking to a white guy. He’s not going to think that you wanted to talk to me. He’s going to think that I’m panhandling you or trying to hustle you. My point is, sometimes you’re considered guilty until proven innocent.”
Memphis, Tennessee
Can you realy trust what you see?
Perception depends on complex functions of the nervous system, but subjectively seems mostly effortless because this processing happens outside conscious awareness
Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment. All perception involves signals in the nervous system, which in turn result from physical or chemical stimulation of the sense organs. For example, vision involves light striking the retina of the eye, smell is mediated by odor molecules, and hearing involves pressure waves. Perception is not the passive receipt of these signals, but is shaped by learning, memory, expectation, and attention.
Perception can be split into two processes. Firstly, processing sensory input, which transforms these low-level information to higher-level information (e.g., extracts shapes for object recognition). Secondly, processing which is connected with a person's concepts and expectations (knowledge) and selective mechanisms (attention) that influence perception.
Candid shot, Trondheim Norway.
We each carry a wound. And with it comes the pain of shame, regret, guilt, and fear… fear that if others knew, you could never be forgiven. You determine that you can never be known, will never be truly known. Complete honesty never leaves your lips, vulnerability develops a calloused cage, and love can only penetrate so deep before it finds the locked door with no key.
What would it take to let down the pretense and the bluff? What would it take to determine that you’re enough? These wounds that mar and scar could never detract from who you are. They do not define you as weak but strong… as long... as long as you let them heal. Who you are and what you’ve done do not define who you will become. No it is what you choose to do with the blows your dealt. Let healing come and wear silver scars as the battle wounds that they are.