Photography and time

I don't think that photo and time can be compared because even though the photographic image needs time in order to exist, the time won't need photo to exist but only to remain saved. Because as a natural element, the time doesn't need anything else besides itself.

Although one doesn't necessarily needs the other, a photo needs a certain amount of time, so it can be effective, in the sense that the image will be reproduced correctly.

But even knowing that photography is able to be the really faithful to the reality, the fact that it is limited to a frame, and can be edited, makes me think twice about trust or not in a photographic image.

The River of Time

Time is an unstoppable flow of nature. A moment in time is over before it even starts. A moment in time is measured from an hour down to the milla-second. Photography and film capture a moment in time mechanically , and unnaturally preserve it for the viewer. The flow of time is like a river, each moment pass's by and is recorded in the memory of the brain; but with the help of technology, moments can be preserved electronically. This in turn changes the feeling of a moment, Christmas mourning would have a different feeling to one if they saw pictures compared to actually being there. The content of a photo is different then the actual experience.

a photograph is a moment in time captured and preserved. it is the moment where the boy opens his christmas present. it is a single moment that cannot be replicated or altered (at least not hold its authenticity if this is done). Time never stops in our world but in the world of a picture time does not move at all. the moment is frozen. photographs are a very trustworthy medium as they are an exact replication of a single moment in time, however if one needed to know what happened right before the photo was taken there would be no real way of knowing. the picture can only show a small fraction of a much larger picture that is constantly moving. because time never stops it can only be preserved through things such as art and photography.

Time & Photographs

I believe that time and photographic images can be compared greatly. In terms of time, since images stay still preserved in time, the photo does nothing to time itself. But in given situations, the expression of time through a photograph is possible, however it takes imagination on the viewer's part. For example, imagine an image of somebody throwing a ball. The picture itself is frozen in time, but the viewer can easily imagine the ball getting to point B. So therefore the expression of time through a photograph lies in the hands of the viewer, not the creator. Personally I trust a photograph more than something such as a painting for a reproduction of reality because a photograph mimics exactly what is really there, but due to human imperfections, a painting of something could be much more warped from reality than a photograph can be. However, nobody can really argue that either medium is one you can trust for the truth, because how can we prove that any of it is real? We can't.

the photographic image captures a split second of a past moment in time, and in this way it stops time and preserves it. however, time does not stop; it is ever changing and continuous. this opposition between the two clearly shows that they are contrasting, and cannot be compared. currently the photograph and film are the most reliable source of information and evidence. i would trust a photograph over any other form of medium because it is more accurate at portraying real life. this is only absolute assuming that the photograph in question is not tampered with or edited.

Photos in many ways is an effort to keep time from getting any one just a little older. Humans are always in search of the next best thing; the new beauty product the new way to last for ever. In the end time is the victor in the sense that every will die one day. As well as the photograph and the photographer will one day be out of style. time is not like the photograph because time will always refute the works of a photographer.

the photographic image captures a split second of a past moment in time, and in this way it stops time and preserves it. however, time does not stop; it is ever changing and continuous. this opposition between the two clearly shows that they are contrasting, and cannot be compared. currently the photograph and film are the most reliable source of information and evidence. i would trust a photograph over any other form of medium because it is more accurate at portraying real life. this is only absolute assuming that the photograph in question is not tampered with or edited.

Relationship between time and photographic image

It is difficult to compare time and a photography, because photography is a frozen moment of time. It is a past event and time never goes in the past it flows in the future that means that a moment never stops it is always going on. Pictures are also incorrect. It shows us only a part of a situation and therefore people don't understand it right and start to built his/her own opinion. That means that you never could put a whole moment in one picture. And you also never feel the same if you see a picture than in this moment when the picture was making. A picture is only for enjoyment.

Photography and time

The relationship between photography and time is a hard thing to pin-point. A photograph is a still image, less than a second of time flash frozen for later enjoyment. The instant it is taken it becomes a past event. Time flows, without regard to what happened in the past. where as a photograph is Created by events of the past. A moment in time is so much more then just an event that is easily captured. Pictures cannot be trusted because they are misread. Pictures are incorrect representations of time because they do not display every thing happening in the scene, just a visual representation. For instance a picture of a football game will not display what the crowd was yelling, how cold it was on that day or how exited everyone at the game was. A photograph may be more accurate then an artist's painting but it can never be a perfect representation of time.

Photography cannot be compared with time because it is not meant to capture "time". Photography is meant to capture a feeling, an emotion or even a simple action. For example, in Blow Up michel is taking a picture of the young man and the woman. during this he examines the scene and assumes many different things about the scene. He pretends to know about the young mans brother and many other details that he cannot possibly know. This implies that he is not trying to capture time so much as the feelings that are shared between the two people.