How Far Can You Venture From the Truth?

Wed, Feb 10, 2010

I took this photo with my Canon G9 the other day. It was a very rainy day and I stepped out on our balcony and snapped a few close-up photos of a leaf on one of our plants that lives on the balcony.

It was my small dose of photographic activity for the day.

While post-processing the image I started venturing down different paths, away from the original, away from the truth. I was bored with the original image and I didn’t have a whole lot of other new material to work with, so I started pushing the boundaries a bit.

I converted from colour to black and white. I pushed the exposure. I pushed the blacks. I pushed contrast. I pushed clarity. I added local contrast by lightening the main veins in the leaf to create more of a ‘skeleton’ within the leaf.

Skeleton Leaf (before)

Skeleton Leaf (after)

I ventured a fair bit away from the so-called truth in photography.

But wait a minute, is there really such a thing as truth in photography? And if there is, is it then OK to deliberately leave the truth behind in pursuit of a more creative interpretation of a given subject?

In creative photography I think so, but not so in documentary photography.

In creative photography it’s really all about the image for me and the experience an image gives the viewer.

But how far can venture from the truth in photography? What are your thoughts?

If you liked this article, you may also like these:

Black and White, Compact, Processing, Truth

This post was written by:

Thomas - who has written 202 posts on Photography 24/7.

Thomas is the editor and founder of Photography 24/7. He lives in Sydney, Australia with his wife and two daugthers. If you liked this post, why not receive updates when new posts are published? Subscribe to the feed via RSS or EMAIL to get instant updates on new posts.

Contact the author

One Response to “How Far Can You Venture From the Truth?”

-trond- Says:
11. February 2010 at 4:53 am

Hi Thomas,

thanks for sharing the photo, and your thoughts about it. Yes, I think you are right when you make that distinction between art photo and documentary photo, documentary photographs are supposed to convey a message closer to the truth. But I really find myself in a more comfortable situation when the obligation to truth is kept at a distance. I believe Ansel Adams once said that “There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer”, and even in documentary photo there is (I think) an element of interpretation. The photographer might have one reason for taking a picture, but the photo might tell me – as a viewer – something entirely different. And still, I think we both are “right”.

So, I really like the “after”-version of the the leaf better. The blurry veins hint toward IR, but at the same time the drops of waters hold a remarkable clarity. I think it is a great shot, this is nature at its best!

-trond- Says:
11. February 2010 at 4:53 am
Hi Thomas,

thanks for sharing the photo, and your thoughts about it. Yes, I think you are right when you make that distinction between art photo and documentary photo, documentary photographs are supposed to convey a message closer to the truth. But I really find myself in a more comfortable situation when the obligation to truth is kept at a distance. I believe Ansel Adams once said that “There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer”, and even in documentary photo there is (I think) an element of interpretation. The photographer might have one reason for taking a picture, but the photo might tell me – as a viewer – something entirely different. And still, I think we both are “right”.

So, I really like the “after”-version of the the leaf better. The blurry veins hint toward IR, but at the same time the drops of waters hold a remarkable clarity. I think it is a great shot, this is nature at its best!