I was quite worried about taking pictures of people in town as it can be quite intimidating for strangers as the camera was held up to my face and very obvious. We were also told about old 120mm Rollieflex cameras on which pictures are taken at waists height. This would have been a far more subtle way to take photographs of people as it is not in their face; a more natural pose could have been achieved. So are these older cameras less intimidating than the modern digital ones? Traditional is more comfortable? This got me thinking about the relevance to my project. 

The traditional cameras would capture a moment instantly without the chance to edit; it is a raw and factual image. Contextualising this within the terms of Christian relics, I began thinking that Christians in medieval times had no reason to question the authenticity of the relics, whether it was a fabricated body part or and edited one, they had no reason to question its authenticity as it was beyond their means to try to disprove. The shift in technology has allowed us to question the reliability of a source, just as the photographer did who challenged the Holy Shroud of Turin. Photographic evidence alters the meaning of events. What if cameras were around in biblical times? Would the bible be a catalogue? Would relics be redundantly replaced by photographs? This is forcing me to question how people today still actively worship/visit relics when there is no solid way to prove the origins of them, only the idyllic hope that they are of true decent and have great powers.