Time and the photographic are connected with each other in that they contradict each other. The whole point of a photographic image is to stop time. It's purpose is to capture a moment. Time however keeps moving which in effect outdates the photo and makes it unreliable. The passage of time is lost in an image because the image is isolated in it's time. Because of this the photographic image can be representing a reality of time but it is in truth only representing the reality. It is not showing what is truly happening because the moment of time that it captured is gone. This renders its effectiveness almost useless in re-creating reality. However, in a sense that it is reproducing reality, it excels in that the only major flaw is the perception of the human. The photographic image compares equally to other mediums in that they are saturated in emotional truth while the image allows a person to add none.

The relationship between time and photography

A photographic image is able to capture and moment in time and freeze it an eternity. An early photograph for example one taken during the civil war can transport you back you back to that one moment in time instead of imagining what a young union soldier looked like. Obviously you need many photographs to represent time in general but only one photograph is needed for a moment in time and therefore time and the photographic image can be compared at some level. An image illuminates a moment in time but it can also cause the viewer to generalize. I think it is possible to connote time through multiple photographs of the same subjects because the details change. However its not possible with one if you have nothing to compare it to. With a single image you can read into it but essentially you’re just making up a back-story for what you see. I don’t consider any art form a reliable method of conveying reality however photography is certainly capable of reproducing an object very realistically.

Photo vs. Time

The photographic image is entirely dependent on the concept of time. The whole idea of photography is to be able to capture an image in time with exact realism that a painting or other medium could not. They can not be compared in the sense of similarities and differences simply due to the fact that the photographic image is a derivative of time. The photo is a material object that only attempts to save a moment in time through visual means. Although the photographic image can capture a moment in time with 100% visual accuracy, it often times has difficulty reproducing the same level of thought or emotion that, say, a painting might. A certain level of desire and passion could be lost in the simplicity of pressing a button, whereas other artistic form require an extreme amount of manual effort to express things.

the motion of photografs

Time and photographs have a contradictory relationship but not so much, so that they are rendered incongruous. They may seem to be inherently contradictory, time being in a state of constant motion and pictures being still. However it would seem to me that if time is indeed in a state of Constant motion then any picture is also in constant motion only in a cycle that covers such a tiny fraction of a second that it's movment is indicenible. If this principal holds ture then the only way to get an actual still photograph is to cool the shrouding of the camera to absolute zero. Now just because the photograph may also be moving may not describe that photographsa are an accurate depicter of realigy but rather only an accurate depicter of what it sees, and what is sees may be altered by human interference or anything for that matter. This then makes the photograph aas unreliable as any other art form in experssing reallity because for a photograph to be taken it must be taken by a human and therefor is subject to the same subjective errors as painting or any other forms of self expression.

Photography and Time

I do not think that Time and Photography can easily be compared. Yes, the object of photography is to capture a moment in time but that moment of time is relatively false because there is no exact time of when it was taken. Time continues to move while pictures freeze time. However, they can be compared by saying that photography is related to moments and aspects in time. I suppose, if it was clear to see the sun in the picture, one could determine the hour the picture was taken but even then, is not exact. Its' not exact because first of all the sun is too bright to look at for a period to guess minuets and secondly, there is no exact place in the sky where seconds or even minutes are positioned. I think it depends on what you want to affect, what your main idea is. If its' just a picture to show a couple or of scenery its main idea is to affect the viewer and to give he/she an emotional feeling. If the picture is taken for study or for evidence its' to prove a point. Therefore I think that the effectiveness of photography is based on what the main point to take the picture is. I do trust this mechanical medium over others because surroundings although sometimes blurry are not made up; the shadows are real, the people are real ect.

The Relationship Between Photography and Time

Time and the photographic image have an interesting relationship. While the photographic image is an excellent recorder of a certain moment, it leaves out very much and is in fact misleading in what it does capture. For instance, the photograph leaves out all senses accept for sight it its approximation of a moment. This is an injustice to the moment, because just then there could have been a singer behind the camera sweetening the air. Or, somebody trying to trick the viewer could be holding the subject of the photo at gunpoint, and unfortunately, they are just outside the frame. The photograph, essentially, cannot properly display time. There is no movement in a picture, and one can only see what is presented to them. Unfortunately, this is a common misapprehension. Far too many people rely on still photography for the truth about a time. This division of truth and time has been lessened by the video camera and filmic recordings, but thanks to modern technology, a still photograph is often times more trustworthy.

Question: What is the relationship between Time and the photographic Image?

Consider the following when answering:

- Can they be compared?
- What does the image do to time or vice-versa?
- Is it possible to connote the passage of time via the image? Why or why not?
- What does your relationship between the two say about the effectiveness of the (photographic, filmic) image?
- Do you trust the photograph over other mediums as a reproduction of reality?

Also: You must comment on a minimum of two other posts (not this post) in order to receive full credit.

perspective is the definition of something according to an individual. we all see things differently, and in different perspectives. perspective can very by peer group. for example a child growing up in the slums of india has a very different perspective on life than a child growing up in the suburbs in the US. it is hard to change perspective unless someone is placed out of their comfort zone and experiencing something new. For example if the child in india were to switch places with the child in the US both of their perspecives on life. perspective is all based on the environment one lives their day to day life in and their peer group.

Perception

Perspective, to me, is one's point of view, and everyone has an altering perspective of the world. After perseiving an event or object, people then judge it, both consciencously and uncsiencously. Our perseption is shaped and evolved from the experiences in our lives. Through the past we persieve the future. Past hardships, or easy experiences can affect the way we see what is around us. For example, if someone has an opinion of one thing which they enjoy, but then they experience something of trauma, they wont persieve it the same way. They now perieve it in a negative connotation.

Perspective is the way something is seen. Perspective could be one's point of view on an issue, or in a more literal sense, the physical angle at which one views an object or scene. One's point of view on an issue can be affected by nurture, or one's education in general. One's literal view on an object or scene can be affected by any number of things. In real life, a person walking can obstruct your view, or an untimely blink even. That is all dependent on chance. But there are other times when one's literal view of something is manipulated intentionally. The most obvious of these situations is a film. The camera angle and the focus takes complete control of the viewer and can control the way the film is presented. The viewer has literally no control. To shift one's perspective, a change needs to occur. This can be manifested in a gain of knowledge or a physical accident. Most of the time, the change appears to be minimal, or does not apear at all, but it is there, and after a while will become more influential.