In the early stages of photography, the person was immune to photography. This fallacy of existence, where an image could be recorded of objects and places, but where the pellucid figure avoided the camera's eye, was most likely due to long exposure times. Far less likely, in fact, impossibly, did these people choose to abstain from appearing on the exposed plate. When citizens of crowded cities no longer saw their streets with crowds they must have questioned the realism of a photograph. This lack of human image was certainly an obstacle; the camera's integrity, as well as its efficacy demanded the human image. After the bombardment of the plates with countless chemicals and experiments, finally, the latent image emerged, the power of photography became so strong even man was forced to appear within it. Suddenly, portraits could be created with photography. Was Balzac correct when he discussed the portrait as a vehicle to remove and record a physical layer of the self? The reality of a portrait is in the eye of the beholder: a trace of a past moment, a representation of an individual (sometimes a real part/layer of that individual), or merely minerals scientifically combined to create a flat, sometimes beautiful image.

The photograph was established, capturing place, followed by the fast exposure which "cloned" humans onto photographs. The speed of technology created a system where the thoroughness of thought on every aspect of the project lost an importance that art held previously. In order to make a photograph, it was not necessary for the photographer to understand whether he would capture a physical layer of a person, or would be merely connecting metals. The process makes void the theoretical.

As all these technologies spring up, making easier day to day life, changing the idea of distance, it becomes increasingly difficult not to place one's faith in the new ways of life. Photography does not create lossless duplicates of images. As people are able to send a telegraph immediately, or, more incredibly, speak on the telephone to a person miles away, the possibilities of technology begin to seem endless. Suddenly, if a portrait is taken, it becomes a real representation of a person (as long as the viewers hold enough faith in the technology). Just as one has faith that there is another person speaking across phone lines, a person he cannot see, why not have faith that a photograph is a part of a tangible being.

The quintessential portrait may have nothing to do with the actual personality of the model. The verisimilitude of the image could be completely wrong, and still create a lovely photograph. Can you call this false representation a portrait? People are able to put the foibles of the photograph behind them. If expression can be defined by distinct things which are not things that make a person an individual, a successful photographer is merely one who aligns the subject with a standard normal. Through constant exposure on a massive level, portraits are able to warble from one reality to the next.

Today, the image is not confused with reality; the image is a concrete part of reality. Because of all the other technologies people were accepting at the time of the invention of photography, the technology of the photograph could also become more and more acceptable. In this case, people open their minds to the image, and "what it is" becomes something different from "what it was." By breaking that reality with art, by calling photography art, the artist becomes free to make the best photographs as opposed to the most accurate representations. Once the fissiparous bond between reality and art is broken, there are still small things that cannot help but be tied back to the real.

When studying a portrait, it seems easy to know certainly what type of outfit the sitter is wearing, but wouldn't the colors be more accurate in a painting? Even if an entire layer of someone's being had made it onto the light sensitive plate, the personality of the sitter could only be judged through a real life meeting. Probably, only with multiple real life meetings.

Unfortunately, the portrait is not resistant to a materialist analysis. As it is impossible to know the true reality of the portrait, it is important to look at the picture critically in other ways. Materialist analyses have to do with how an object feels and looks. The type of photograph and the sense and size of the image all affect the success of the image. Perhaps, merely choosing not to worry about the reality of a portraits throws them closer to reality. Without worrying about creating a false reality, small pieces of actual reality may coruscate through the photographic image.

Now that man is no longer immune to the photographic plate, and the ubiquitous cameras line up four to every corner, it is time to discover the truth of the portrait. The physical layer throwing itself into the camera lens is the first theory to mark off the list. We have science to prove that the photograph really is just a bunch of chemicals and metals floating around in the right orders after the right kind of reaction. However, it is still curious as to how much character can be held in an image, and what is the future of the image. Perhaps the next steps are in the virtual worlds. It seems easy enough to discover who is real and who is only an image. Humanity was only briefly immune to the photograph. How long will we remain immune to the virtual world? The reality of a portrait still lies in the eye of the beholder. It can be one thing or many: artistic decisions, materials, memories, places, objects, eyes, mirrors, pamphlets, maps, insights, death, stillness, resemblances, materials, traces... but the importance to the individual of finding the difference between the real and the portrait becomes vital once the representations become absolutely identical.