Arguments for photos showing reality:
* Indexicality: Photography, by its nature, is tied to the physical world. Light reflects off a subject and is captured by a sensor or film. This physical connection creates a sense of veracity, leading viewers to believe that a photograph is a direct representation of what was in front of the camera at a specific moment.
* Documentation: Photography has historically been used for documentation purposes – in journalism, scientific research, and legal proceedings. In these contexts, accuracy and objectivity are paramount.
* Expectation of Truth: Often, when people look at a photograph, they implicitly assume it represents reality, unless there's an indication to the contrary (e.g., obvious digital manipulation).
* Social Contract: In some contexts, like news photography, there's a tacit agreement between the photographer/publication and the audience that the photos haven't been substantially altered to misrepresent what happened.
Arguments against photos showing reality:
* Subjectivity of the Photographer: The photographer makes numerous choices that influence the final image, including:
* Framing: What to include in the shot and what to exclude.
* Angle: The perspective from which the photo is taken.
* Lighting: Natural or artificial, its intensity and direction.
* Composition: The arrangement of elements within the frame.
* Timing: The precise moment the shutter is released.
All these choices reflect the photographer's perspective and intent, even if unconsciously.
* Technical Limitations: Photography can only capture a limited range of light, color, and detail compared to human vision. It also flattens three dimensions into two. Therefore, it's always a partial and selective representation.
* Post-Processing: Even without blatant manipulation, editing techniques (color correction, cropping, sharpening, etc.) can significantly alter the look and feel of an image, subtly or drastically changing how it's perceived.
* Intentional Manipulation: Photos can be staged, digitally altered, or otherwise manipulated to create a false or misleading impression.
* Photography as Art: In art photography, the goal is often not to represent reality literally but to express emotions, ideas, or explore aesthetic possibilities. Distortion, abstraction, and manipulation are common and accepted practices.
* The Myth of Objectivity: Even the most seemingly objective photograph is still a construction. It's impossible to completely remove the photographer's bias or the limitations of the technology.
* Context Matters: The meaning and interpretation of a photo depend heavily on its context – where it's published, who took it, what caption accompanies it, etc. This context shapes how the viewer perceives the "reality" presented.
Conclusion:
Photos are not objective records of reality but rather interpretations. While they are *based* on reality (in that they record light reflecting off of real objects), they are always filtered through the lens of the photographer, the limitations of the technology, and the choices made in post-processing.
Whether photos are "supposed to" show reality depends entirely on the context and the intended purpose. In some situations, like journalism, there's a strong expectation of accuracy and a responsibility to avoid misleading manipulation. In other contexts, like art photography, the focus is on creative expression, and the concept of "reality" becomes less relevant.
A more useful question to ask might be: What is the *purpose* of this photograph, and does it fulfill that purpose ethically and effectively? Understanding the context, the creator's intent (as far as can be determined), and the potential for manipulation are crucial for critically interpreting any photograph.