Photographic Truth: Fact or Fiction?

Photographs often seem factual—it is a captured moment in time, a piece of visual evidence that is undeniable. Cultural weight is given to photographs because they are traces of the real. However, what people often don’t realize is in the same way that a journalist approaches an article with his own bias, a photographer approaches a photograph with bias as well, and that can seriously affect the factuality of an image.

The photographer dictates a lot of what message is being communicated by an image with the lighting, the angle, the focus, the framing, the moment he or she chooses to capture. While an image can be pretty strong evidence of what is true, they cannot always be taken at face value, in the same way that a piece of writing can not be.

With modern technology, the need to develop a critically eye for photography is escalated further. PhotoShop has revolutionized the way that photos can be digitally enhanced or manipulated to portray a desired effect. Because of this, the photographic truth is put under further scrutiny. There is no guarantee that a photograph represents unbiased truth.

Sturken and Cartwright suggest in their article "Images, Power, and Politics," that the viewer is responsible for how they view images, and the way that they engage what they are viewing. Assessing photographic truth is "one way that we, as viewers, contribute to the process of assigning value to the culture in which we live." While photographic truth is debatable, we, as viewers, can glean truth and meaning if we are critical of the ideologies that may be at play in an image.

Still Photography

In their article "Digital Still Photography," Quinn and Filak argue that still photography is more powerful than video, because rather than displaying images for a passive audience, still photos allow the viewer to chose how to long to look and where.  This concept was fascinating to me, and I immediately flashed back to the 2012 Summer Olympics in London when McKayla Maroney executed a perfect routine on the vault. There were pictures and videos all over the internet documenting her vault.

While some might argue that the still photography is more powerful at depicting the intensity of a moment, I think that they are powerful in different ways. With a video, you can see the full effect from beginning to end. As an example, I've attached a video clip of Maroney's vault routine.

It is undeniable that watching the whole performance from start to finish is unlike anything else. Her execution is perfect, and her ability is amazing. However, there is a different kind of power to a still photo--no more powerful, no less powerful. It is simply achieves a different purpose. A still frame captures the intensity of a single moment in time. 

The other thing I found interesting about Quinn and Filaks's article was the idea that even photojournalists need to be held to ethical standards. Photojournalists, just like regular journalists, they are capable of skewing the truth, and so skewing public opinion. Quinn and Filaks urge that photojournalists must use their photographs to "tell a story that reflects what actually happened." While photographers don't need to use a method of verification, they do need to ensure that there is minimal interference with the integrity of a photograph, event, or article.