Truth and Photography: An Analogue Snapshot

Exploring ideas of truth and fiction in the photographic image and how they are affected by the development from analogue to digital technologies.

The ideas of truth and fiction in relation to photography are nuanced, subjective and contextual. This essay will outline a multitude of theories, approaches and attitudes towards truth, fiction and photography, and explore the advancements of photographic technologies from analogue to digital. In a world filled with accessible photography through smartphones and SLR cameras, it is important to critically explore the concepts of truth and fiction in order to understand how photography can be perceived, particularly as an artistic medium. Ideas such as verisimilitude and indexicality are key to understanding how truth and fiction may be depicted or perceived in photography, as well as the relevance of a photographer's intentions. Exploring digital technology, this essay will evaluate the weight of fiction created by photographic manipulation. To further understand all of these concepts, I will be analysing the work of Alfred Stieglitz, a key figure in the development of photography as an artistic medium beyond practical uses, as well as a selection of theoretical texts, including Heilbrun’s ‘Impressionism and Photography’ (2009).

To explore truth and fiction in photography, we must first understand how both photographs and "truth" can be understood. According to Mullen (1998), a photograph can be seen as “the perfect documentary medium because the mechanical nature of the medium ensured unadulterated, exact replicas of the subject matter.” The use of the term ‘mechanical’ in this statement can be attributed to the process of analogue photography, which predates accessible digital photography. The idea that analogue photography served as a “replica” of reality is something that was widely considered to be fact (Mitchell, 1992 p.225), with the nature of the medium utilising light to expose an image into film. To reveal the captured image(s), the film must undergo a chemical developing process that creates photo negatives that can then be enlarged to create photographic prints. In its early conception, photography was used primarily as a form of documentation, but later found its way into artistic contexts, beginning to construct narratives that deviate from reality (Neier and Pedri, 2019 p.5). This deviation from reality could also be considered fictitious. However, some critics claim that, due to the automated mechanisms in a camera, photographic images are factual documentations of reality, and entirely uncreative (Kogan, 2015 p.869). 

Examining both perspectives, the concept of verisimilitude becomes significant. Truth, in reference to photography, may differ from truth in any other context; whilst there is some verisimilitude in imaging, the perspective shifts from objectivity to subjectivity. In the photographic context, truth refers to the photographer’s response to whatever subject or object is in front of the camera (Thompson, 2002, p.28). In the early days of the medium, photography was widely considered to be the truest representation of fact, and quickly became instrumental to the delivery of news, archive, and the realistic capture of history (Stoehr, 1969 p.1283). While using image as a way of confirming or proving events became standard, and photojournalism became more prevalent, analogue processes and techniques continued to develop. The verisimilitude of photography does not alter with technology, but as an instrument dependent on the user, a camera is never neutral (Tagg, 1988 p.63).

The consideration of the intentions of a photographer when capturing an image is an important one, as a photographic subject could be meticulously staged or arranged by the photographer, in turn interrupting what may be considered as truthful. In this regard, the photographer could be considered a victim to the apparent lack of control over the way intentions would be perceived by a viewer (Scruton, 1981 p.539). However, must the intentions of a photographer be considered to read a photograph as truthful? The creative intentions of a photographer may be obsolete; if an image displays an exact likeness to the subject before it, it must be infused with verisimilitude (Kogan, 2015 p.871). 

The concept of verisimilitude predates photography, and can be used to discuss the work of painters. Here, the work of Impressionist painters becomes relevant – impressionist paintings did not depict reality, but the appearance of reality (Venturi, 1941 p.36). In 1827, the first photographic image was stabilised by Joseph Niépce, but it wasn’t until 1839 that photography was declared a significant scientific breakthrough following the work of Louis Daguerre (Davenport, 1999 p.8). Daugerre utilised various chemicals to expose a copper plate to light, and fix the image left behind – this process takes the name of its inventor, known as a Daguerreotype. This was the same time that the Impressionist art movement began. (Heilbrun, 2009 p.1). The invention of photography made subtle contributions to the way in which landscapes and human figures were depicted by painters. (Varnedoe, 1980). As impressionism became an increasingly refined style, advancements to the daguerreotype were also being made. At first, the results produced by the camera depicted a somewhat deformed view of reality, with little nuance allowed by the emulsion, and the appearance flattened space as a result of the lens. As photography became more widespread from 1859, stereoscopic photography became popularised. (Heilbrun, 2009 p.18) Stereoscopic photography is the viewing of two photographs, taken of the same subject from slightly different angles, at the same time to create an illusion of depth and dimension. The influence that this had on paintings became more evident (Heilbrun, 2009 .p19). While never explicitly acknowledged, the stereoscopic depiction of objects now being reflected in paintings was further evidence that, subconsciously, photographic mediums were influencing the style of painting. As impressionism moved further away from realism in its depiction of reality, photography became the means to observe truth in gestures that were snapped in an instant (Heilbrun, 2009 p.19).

As photography progressed beyond the realms of documentary and into artistic uses, more photographic techniques became available. One of the key figures within this was Alfred Stieglitz (Naef, 1978 p.12). 

Fig. 1 shows a photogravure produced by Stieglitz. In this process, the film negatives that hold the image are transferred onto a copper plate and used to create a photographic print. Stieglitz’s work was pivotal to the broadening of photographic uses, extending beyond documentary purposes to artistic purposes. This image in particular was cropped vertically to create a sense of dynamic and dramatise the scene (Princeton University Art Museums, no date). According to Coomsaraswamy (1924, quoted in Thompson, 2002 p.29), “The camera is a means of expression with virtues and limitations of its own; the photograph which looks like a drawing, etching or painting, is not a real photograph.” Whether or not a photogravure can be considered a photograph, or just a photographic process, is one that leaves room for debate. Regardless, the image was selectively cropped, and underwent additional chemical processes to manipulate the physical appearance of the image. This, in turn, alters the verisimilitude.

Beyond this, photography continued to develop through the 20th century far beyond the technologies discussed up to this point. This saw many iterations of accessible analogue photography, before the development of digital photography. Considered by many to be a radical break from analogue photography, digital photography then saw widespread dissemination in the new millennium (Elkins, 2007 p.38). As opposed to the microscopic silver particles in film strips, digital photography utilises computer technology and stores data via pixels. This allows for higher amounts of information to be stored, converted, and in turn altered by other digital mediums. The ease of manipulating and editing digital images forces the question of how truthful and authentic digital photography can be (Elkins, 2007 p.40). The potential purpose of images continues to broaden with the onset of accessible digital photography, and the parallel development of software used to manipulate digital images. At the conception of this type of software, the intention was to replicate the technologies present within analogue photography, but this quickly expanded beyond the limitations of the paper and chemical processes involved (Price, 2021 p.178). These programmes have become pivotal to the practice of digital photographers and artists, as essential to them as pigments are to a painter (Mitchell, 1994 p.9).

As the medium of digital photography quickly offered a vast range of new properties to artists, the production of images manipulated to present an alternative truth, or fiction altogether, has become standard in society, even when not obvious (Lavrence, 2020). Modern technology has even allowed for smartphones to erase individuals in the background of photographs and alter facial expressions of those in the foreground. This change comes from a technological sophistication that challenges the ontological status of images (Price, 2021 p.179). This change has allowed for great creative achievements that can be considered fictional, for they are manipulated to depict things beyond the realms of possibility. It is difficult to question where truth becomes fiction within art, for art involves perception and different points of reference that can change our perception of what we consider to be ‘reality’ (Mullen, 1998 p.35). Kilborn and Izod (1997, p.122) state that “the individual who feigns creates with imagination, and the resultant idea can either be a truth or a lie, or, even more interestingly, neither.” The factor of perspective when viewing photography will always be relevant, as it is not possible to look at a photograph or image with complete and authentic objectivity, as the perception of the viewer will always alter whatever truth or fiction was intended by its creator.

Another way to examine the relationship between truth, fiction and photography is to consider indexicality, the direct relationship between a resulting image and the captured subject (Gunning, 2004 p.40). No photograph, analogue or digital, is free of the effects of indexicality, and similarly, photographs are not the lone productive source of it (Roberts, 2008). Viewing analogue and digital photography from the same theoretical perspective is helpful when analysing the subject of a photograph and the reaction it evokes – in this case, the notion of truth or fiction – as this acknowledges the subjectivity involved in the interpretation of any art form.

The indexicality of the above images is worth considering whilst we analyse the truth or fiction presented by the images. Looking alone, we are never truly able to discern how much control a photographer has had over the subject; and even if an image was constructed or staged, how does this affect the truth of an image? Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 both depict a kiss shared between two subjects captured using analogue technology. The scene depicted in The Kiss at Hôtel de Ville was to document Paris as the city of love, yet the kissing couple were paid models. (Vestberg, 2011, p.158) The passers-by and other surroundings are unstaged, and the images were presented with the assertion that they ‘unposed’, and therefore would evoke a different reaction from the audience. The indexicality of the subject is not altered by this deliberate fiction, but the verisimilitude may shift in the perception of a viewer upon learning this information. There may even be a suppression of any emotional response that had initially been felt towards the image (Ross, 1982, p.14). This image is also an application of Barthes’ theory of reality effects; the image does not denote the real directly, but in fact signifies it (Barthes, 1986 p.148).

In contrast, V-J Day at Times Square portrays an unstaged and spontaneous kiss. When Eisenstaedt noticed the couple in his peripheral vision, he acted without conscious thought and captured the photograph (Verria and Galdorisi, 2012). Spontaneity does not, however, inherently reflect truth – what if Eisenstaedt had made a series of different decisions that lead to him being elsewhere the moment the kiss had taken place? This does not take away the fact that it happened, merely that it was captured at the time. Photography is an indexical snapshot of reality, but it can also be an aestheticized or constructed reality, and runs deeper than its literal content (Neier and Pedri, 2015 p.5). So, whilst both images depict similar scenes but have different amounts of construction behind them, they both equally have levels of verisimilitude and indexicality to be considered, meaning neither can justifiably be labelled as truthful or fictitious.

No matter how staged or constructed a photograph appears to be, in both digital and analogue photography, it can still convey truth or fiction in equal parts. The notion that photographers are victims of the process, in the lack of control that they possess, may be an outdated statement given the liberties of modern digital technology. However, the discerning of intent behind a photograph is just as abstracted now as it would have been in the early days of analogue photography, as will always be the case in art; the subjectivity of a viewer will always overwrite an artist’s intentions in perception. It is still important to question whether or not a constructed or staged image can be considered as equally truthful as a spontaneous snapshot, and also whether artistic intentions become obsolete when presenting a photograph in any context. It is important to advance with trepidation when viewing photographs, and not assume the position that every photograph tells a truth, as this could be the reflection of an image’s verisimilitude or indexicality. While the development from analogue to digital photography has been vast, and the additional development of editing software has catalysed new approaches to the medium, the intentions behind an image have remained equally as creative as the individual operating the camera. It can be assumed that one medium is no less fictitious, or indeed more truthful, than the other. 

Bibliography

Barthes, R. (1986) The Reality Effect, in The Rustle of Language. Oxford: Blackwell, 148.

Davenport, A. (1999) The History of Photography: An Overview. Taylor & Francis.

Elkins, J. (2007) Photography theory. New York: Routledge. 2.

Engman, C. (2013) The Deceit of Images, University of Southern California.

Heilbrun, F. (2009) Impressionism and Photography, History of Photography, 33:1.

Gunning (2004), ‘What’s the Point of an Index? or, Faking Photographs.’, Digital Aesthetics, Nordic Research on Media and Communication Review, (1–2), pp.39-49.

Kilborn, R. W., Izod, J. (1997) An introduction to television documentary: confronting reality. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Kogan, T. S. (2015). The enigma of photography, depiction, and copyright originality. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 25(4), 869-938.

Lavrence, C., Cambre, C. (2020). ‘“Do I Look Like My Selfie?”: Filters and the Digital-Forensic Gaze’. Social Media + Society, 6(4).

Mitchell, W. J. (1994) The reconfigured eye : visual truth in the post-photographic era. New edn. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Mullen, L. (1998) Truth In Photography: Perception, Myth And Reality In The Postmodern World, Florida, University of Florida.

Naef, W.J. (1978). The Collection of Alfred Stieglitz: Fifty Pioneers of Modern Photography. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Neier, A., Pedri, N. (2019). ’Un-truths of photography in fiction’. Image & Narrative, 20(3). P.1-10.

Price, D. (2021) Photography: A Critical Introduction.  6th edn. Edited by L. Wells. Taylor & Francis Group.

Roberts, J. (2008) Oxford Art Journal, Volume 31, Issue 3, October 2008,  p.463–468.

Ross, S. (1982). ‘What Photographs Can’t Do’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 41(1). 

Scruton, R. (1981). ‘Photography and Representation’, Critical Inquiry, 7(3), p.539.

Stoehr, T. (1969). ‘Realism and Verisimilitude’, Texas Studies in Literature and Language, 11(3), 1269–1288. 

Tagg, J. (1993) The Burden of Representation: Essays on Photographies and Histories. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press.

Thompson, J.L. (2002),  ‘Truth and Photography’, The Yale Review 90, no. 1 (2002): 25-53.

Varnedoe, K. (1980). ‘The artifice of candor: Impressionism and photography reconsidered’, Art in America, 68(1), pp.66-78.

Venturi, L (1941) ‘The Aesthetic Idea of Impressionism’ The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Spring 1941, Vol. 1.

Verria, L., Galdorisi, G. (2012). The Kissing Sailor: The Mystery Behind the Photo that Ended World War II. United States: Naval Institute Press.

Vestberg, N.L (2011) ‘Robert Doisneau and the Making of a Universal Cliché’, History of Photography, 35:2,p.157-165.

Figures

Fig. 1 – Stieglitz, Alfred. Winter on Fifth Avenue. 1893. Analogue photograph, printed as photogravure. Accessed December 28, 2023, https://artmuseum.princeton.edu/collections/objects/14710.

Fig. 2 – Eisenstaedt, Alfred. V-J Day in Times Square. 1945. Analogue photograph. Accessed December 28, 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square#/media/File:Legendary_kiss_V–J_day_in_Times_Square_Alfred_Eisenstaedt.jpg.

Fig. 3 – Doisneau, Robert. The Kiss by the Hôtel de Ville. 1950. Analogue photograph. Accessed December 28, 2023, https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20170213-the-iconic-photo-that-symbolises-love