When is a photo better than being there?

[Mike Buckley]

A discussion taking place in a thread got me thinking: When is a photo generally as good or better than experiencing the scene that we photographed? When is a photo generally not as good as being there?

I'll get the discussion going...

There is one element of an action photograph that I think provides an experience that is better than experiencing the scene live -- the ability to revel for as long as we want in that one precise moment in time when all action is stopped.

Perhaps macro photography, astrophotography, and any other type of photography used to record a scene that is difficult to experience with the naked eye is better when viewed as a photograph.

On the other hand, landscape, seascape and cityscape photography, as wonderful as the photos can be, don't live up to experiencing the scene for me because a photo isn't three-dimensional and doesn't include the aromas and sounds of the scene. Worse yet, when viewing the photo, the aromas and sounds going on in our viewing environment may be exactly the opposite of what was happening when the scene was being photographed.

Your thoughts?

[Shadowman]

When being there presents a danger to yourself.

http://www.dronestagr.am/blog/a-phan...pting-volcano/

[DanK]

On the other hand, landscape, seascape and cityscape photography, as wonderful as the photos can be, don't live up to experiencing the scene for me because a photo isn't three-dimensional and doesn't include the aromas and sounds of the scene. Worse yet, when viewing the photo, the aromas and sounds going on in our viewing environment may be exactly the opposite of what was happening when the scene was being photographed.

To each his or her own. Google Ansel Adams / images and ask yourself whether these are just pale imitations of being present. I don't think so. By controlling framing, converting to black and white, controlling tonality, waiting for ideal lighting, etc., he brought out patterns that I would have largely missed if I had been standing next to the camera. I have the same reaction to many impressionist and pointillist landscapes. However, I find doing that--finding ways to make a landscape beautiful rather than just a documentation of a real scene--very difficult. I find it much easier in the case of macro or night photography to show things one normally wouldn't notice.

That's one of the reasons I rarely post landscapes. The other is that because digital makes it so easy, many people simply crank up saturation and contrast, or use extreme tone mapping, and that is what a lot of folks now consider 'good' landscapes. I know one person who used to shoot landscapes professionally (on film) who gave it up for this reason.

[Loose Canon]

With the stuff I've been doing lately in a studio type environment pretty much every final shot is better than being there putting the parts together.

[davidedric]

Well, I'm not sure. A photograph can only engage one of our five senses, but being there usually brings in at least two more. I think that a photograph is a different experience, and can certainly be very moving, and there are of course many places and times I can never visit. The right photograph of a place I have been to can bring back the feeling of being there

Dave

[tbob]

Aside of the points on action (sports or wildlife) and photography on scales the human eye is incapable of (I fully agree with you). I would divide landscape/cityscape/people images into at least three categories.

Images taken by others as documentary images. Nowhere near as good as being there. Although evocative, the sensory aspect of the four missing senses is gone. So it is vision only and even then only a pale shadow of the full visual experience.

Images taken by me as documentary images. Still not as good as being there but some images will be strongly evocative of memories. The human brain being a fickle thing, the memories are probably not accurate copies of the original experience but are still strong neurostimulators in many ways

Images processed to enhance aspects of the scene. Not the same as being there but then not designed to be. Black and white images are examples of this. I will use one of mine as an example. Completely unrealistic but designed to evoke a response regarding storms. The viewer fills in their own details and memories. The artist has no control over the end result in the viewers psychology and physiology. Except to anticipate that most people will react in a specific fashion. Some will react strongly , some will not react at all. But certainly different from being there as this is not a true representation of reality.

[inkista]

When it's a VR of Comic-Con? You don't have to fight the crowds that way.

This aspect of trying to recreate the sense of being in a space is probably what got me into 360x180 pano shooting in the first place, but it is, of course, not the same. Experience is one thing, a photograph is another and how each individual evaluates and values the two are going to be different.

I'm sure that for the people who want to go to Comic-Con, any image or blog entry would be insufficient weighed against the actual experience.

[Manfred M]

Simple answer - NEVER!

A photo is simply a two dimensional representation of the object(s) being photograhed. Being there is a right, is three-dimensional, temperature, smells sounds, etc. All of your senses are there gathering data, not just your eyes looking at a two-dimensional interpretation of the object(s) or scene. This is true, even in a studio shoot. Sometimes these other sensations can be quite pleasant (thinking of Mike Buckley ensuring no wine goes to waste after it has been photographed), so shots taken in far less pleasant (and safe) surroundings.

Now, that doesn't mean that people will actually enjoy these experiences (thinking of Trevor or me freezing while shooting in the middle of winter). Getting to some of these places is not easy or inexpensive (I wouldn't classify my travels to Namibia, Ethiopia or Guatemala as being exactly cheap) and may be well beyond the means of many people. My brother enjoys the images I bring back, but frankly has no interest in going to the places that I do.

I've never photographed in a war zone or places that are truly dangerous; so again, there are limits to what I care to get into as well (I have no interest in serious injury or death during my photographic jaunts). On the other hand, you won't find me, camera in hand at a football game, golf tournament or tennis match (or for that matter, chasing an insect with a macro lens). Frankly, I rather doubt I would even bother looking at someone else's images; I just have no interest in any of these events or activities.

[Brownbear]

When one takes an image of a gorgeous sky and low lying clouds as seen through a plane window. I have a few images taken through a plane window that I adore. Perhaps only because one can't truly experience being on top of the clouds, except when sky diving and that experience is too, short-lived.

[chauncey]

Looking back at the images taken in years past sadden me...they represent the places I've seen and never will again.

[RichardTaylor]

Besides sport "moments" etc, for myself it is all ways better being there (unless you have shot something that makes you wish you have never shot it).
I don't get sad when I look at images from my past, as almost always they make for good memories, and for some the photographs are the only memory.

[nimitzbenedicto]

Gosh! that's a tough one.

If the pictures are mine, nothing beats being right there at that moment in time.

[tao2]

When is a photo better than being there?

Unequivocally...Never...

[skilsaw]

A colonoscopy comes to mind.

[AB26]

Whenever the Photographer is skilled to the extent to depict a scene in such a manner that is more pleasurable to the eye than it is to experience the moment the image was captured. In landscape photography, using a wide angle lens, the Photographer can capture more of the mood in that moment in time than is possible for the eye to see, a fleeting moment never to be repeated again. Often a photographic image can depict a scene that can be “misleading” as to the prevailing conditions in that moment in time.

Yes, I have seen many an image that is better looking at rather than actually being there. Those are the images passionate Photographers strive to capture.

Would you rather look at an image of a raging bull Elephant charging or would you prefer to experience that captured moment yourself?

The prevailing conditions and state of mind of the viewer, when looking at an image, will have an influence on weather the viewer wants experience that specific moment in an image, or in real life.

[Mike Buckley]

Would you rather look at an image of a raging bull Elephant charging or would you prefer to experience that captured moment yourself?

Unquestionably the latter, assuming I am at a safe distance.

[Colin Southern]

Simple answer - NEVER!

How about on the occasions where photography allows you to freeze motion and see detail that you couldn't see with the naked eye, eg a closeup of a bird?

[NorthernFocus]

Didn't know what to expect when I clicked on this thread

In general I agree with your OP, Mike. Though I have mixed feelings about wildlife photography. Still cameras capture details that are unseen by the naked eye. It is wonderful to see such things. On the other hand, what I enjoy most about wildlife photography is simply being among the critters and particularly studying them through good optics as they go about their business. I have to say that if I had to make a choice, for anything nature related I'd choose to be there and see it in person. For sports etc, I'd just as soon watch it on the television or read about it on line.

[NorthernFocus]

Unequivocally...Never...

Really? Wars, earthquakes, hurricanes, arctic white out conditions, plane crashes, massive auto accidents, terrorist bombings, etc, etc.?

I will agree that it does the human ego good to have to face one's mortality. But hopefully once is enough to attain an appropriate sense of humility. Beyond that I'll take the imagery every time as a good reminder.

[Manfred M]

How about on the occasions where photography allows you to freeze motion and see detail that you couldn't see with the naked eye, eg a closeup of a bird?

As long as I was there to take the picture, sure, why not. I could stretch your point and suggest that using a high speed, high resolution video camera would be even better and one could see the dynamics of the flight motion.

In both cases, unless one was on site, we still would only have a partial understanding of the bird. Frankly, I would chose being there over looking at a still, except under some very special circumstances. An image gives us a tiny subset of what is happening.