ABSTRACT
Many philosophers have focused their attention on the epistemic implications of photography’s transparency and have tried to explain whether and why photographs are epistemically superior to manugraphs. This has led some to doubt photography’s transparency, however. In defence of transparency, it’s been argued that people should focus closer attention on the causal processes involved. Any visual medium will transmit some kinds of information and not others: a microscope pointed at a drop of blood will show people something very different from what their naked eye sees. Others have focused on the aesthetic implications of photography’s transparency. In particular, they have noticed that photography’s transparency seems closely tied to its automaticity: it doesn’t reflect the photographer’s beliefs about the subject because it creates an automatic record, whereas the painter’s creative process is rather more hands-on. Transparency is perfectly compatible with the photographer’s interventions.
