In my mind, the scientific method depends on consistency and repeatability—if, given a set of variables made consistent, similar results occur. For example, given consistent emulsion in photography, one could predict the kind of image that would be produced from the same lighting, objects, etc. However, the inconsistent emulsion practices and the retouching of photographs in the late nineteenth century demonstrated that photography is easily and more likely to be inconsistent,”a malleable medium,” in the words of Kelly Wilder (director of the Photographic History Research Centre in the UK). Then, photography, or any capture method, is only as scientifically reliable and predictable as the practices that surround it.
Scientific assessment of a capture medium such as photography belie the larger question of whether objectivity is attainable in the act of observation. I argue that it is not, because the act of observing always comes from the perspective of an observer. In other words, a person must decide to photograph, to point the camera at a subject. Even further, a medium of capture prescribes a way of seeing; how one can know about the world and the possible things that can be observed. In this way, the relationship between observer and observed depends on the nature of that medium of capture. What can that medium of capture afford? What does it not afford? How we see determines how we relate to the object we’re seeing, and thus what how we can act towards that object.