We have all heard it said, a picture is worth a thousand words. I have thousands of pictures so that's millions of words. But I have discovered that not every picture captures a moment. Even when you were the one that took that photo, the moment can be lost. It happens to me more than I like to admit. It usually happens with vacation photos. Just what is this a picture of? I'm certain you have had the same experience. You save the picture however, tucking it away in an album or a box, saving the memory.
I find it difficult to discard any photograph. I figure each one was taken for a reason and was important to someone, if only for a moment. The saying is a picture is worth a thousand words, but just who has to provide those words? Is it the one that took the picture, someone that was there at the time, or can anyone add those words? I believe all three answers are correct. The only difference is fact and fiction. In my experience fiction is almost always better than the actual fact of the matter. I've been known to embellish the facts just a little every now and again.
I wonder if older photographs are more valuable than the new. What I'm thinking about are those photographs taken before this digital age. In the beginning photographs were rare and expensive, few were taken. The subject matter of those images was usually something historically significant. The story was told, over and over again. Then photography became more of a common place thing although you still had to go to a professional. Portraits became commonplace. Those stories became lost over time, just who is this person? I have a few like that, most likely ancestors of mine, but not identified. Home photography became popular, just mail them out for developing. The pictures became more varied, more random subjects, but still limited in number. Today, hundreds of images are taken and I'd suggest the majority of them are forgotten about. How many get deleted altogether? I can't say but I seldom delete any that are of good quality. The blurry ones, the shaky ones or ones with sun spots get trashed. After all, it didn't cost me anything. With the old prints I paid for, that didn't happen, I still have them, along with the negatives! Those negatives are the backup.
Old photographs have been in the news a lot the last few months. If it is in a picture, it's proof positive isn't it? Seeing is believing. That seems to be the case with the Governor of Virginia. Strange we can't really see who is in that picture though. It is in his year book so it must be him! But with photoshop and all these other available programs pictures can be modified easily enough. As a result you can't believe your eyes. The magicians and wizards in the world have been aware of that for hundreds of years. You can't always believe your eyes, or the story for that matter. Man has developed technology to manipulate memory. That is the purpose of altering photographs. It is a way to change the story. The only one that will know the difference will be the one(s) that were present when the image was captured. If you weren't there, what are you left with? Silence is the answer. That is unless someone else provides the story. Can you believe the story? Maybe, maybe not.
I don't know just seems to me those old photographs hold more of the truth. Manipulating them was a great deal harder. Things is with the old photographs they were almost always posed. Folks got dressed up, it was an event. Photographs have certainly become a great deal more casual. We see the people as they are, not as they wish to present themselves. And of course, we have video today with audio. That is the biggest change in my thinking. Future generations will not only be able to see my image, but hear my voice. Not that there are many recordings of me, but they do exist. They could, of course, be edited. If a picture is worth a thousand words, what is a video worth? Hmm, that's a good question.
I find it difficult to discard any photograph. I figure each one was taken for a reason and was important to someone, if only for a moment. The saying is a picture is worth a thousand words, but just who has to provide those words? Is it the one that took the picture, someone that was there at the time, or can anyone add those words? I believe all three answers are correct. The only difference is fact and fiction. In my experience fiction is almost always better than the actual fact of the matter. I've been known to embellish the facts just a little every now and again.
I wonder if older photographs are more valuable than the new. What I'm thinking about are those photographs taken before this digital age. In the beginning photographs were rare and expensive, few were taken. The subject matter of those images was usually something historically significant. The story was told, over and over again. Then photography became more of a common place thing although you still had to go to a professional. Portraits became commonplace. Those stories became lost over time, just who is this person? I have a few like that, most likely ancestors of mine, but not identified. Home photography became popular, just mail them out for developing. The pictures became more varied, more random subjects, but still limited in number. Today, hundreds of images are taken and I'd suggest the majority of them are forgotten about. How many get deleted altogether? I can't say but I seldom delete any that are of good quality. The blurry ones, the shaky ones or ones with sun spots get trashed. After all, it didn't cost me anything. With the old prints I paid for, that didn't happen, I still have them, along with the negatives! Those negatives are the backup.
Old photographs have been in the news a lot the last few months. If it is in a picture, it's proof positive isn't it? Seeing is believing. That seems to be the case with the Governor of Virginia. Strange we can't really see who is in that picture though. It is in his year book so it must be him! But with photoshop and all these other available programs pictures can be modified easily enough. As a result you can't believe your eyes. The magicians and wizards in the world have been aware of that for hundreds of years. You can't always believe your eyes, or the story for that matter. Man has developed technology to manipulate memory. That is the purpose of altering photographs. It is a way to change the story. The only one that will know the difference will be the one(s) that were present when the image was captured. If you weren't there, what are you left with? Silence is the answer. That is unless someone else provides the story. Can you believe the story? Maybe, maybe not.
I don't know just seems to me those old photographs hold more of the truth. Manipulating them was a great deal harder. Things is with the old photographs they were almost always posed. Folks got dressed up, it was an event. Photographs have certainly become a great deal more casual. We see the people as they are, not as they wish to present themselves. And of course, we have video today with audio. That is the biggest change in my thinking. Future generations will not only be able to see my image, but hear my voice. Not that there are many recordings of me, but they do exist. They could, of course, be edited. If a picture is worth a thousand words, what is a video worth? Hmm, that's a good question.
No comments:
Post a Comment