Taking photographs can be fun. With digital photography you can take as many photos as you like without being concerned about the cost of film and developing. At the same time we want our pictures to look good. Often, when we later look at the photograph, we see something that we did not notice when we were taking the picture, something that detracts from the shot. This week’s article looks at famous photographs that might have been altered and why. This week there is a link to the article and a link to the slideshow. Go to the links below and read the article and view the slideshow. Write a reflective comment that shows you have read the article, expresses your views, and addresses my questions.
What responsibilities do you think the photographer has when his/her photos are published? What responsibilities do you think the newspaper, magazine, website, etc. have when publishing photos? Under what conditions should it be acceptable to alter photographs? Which of the photos in the slideshow did you find most interesting? Why?
10 comments:
When a photographer published their photo, I believe, that they have the responsibility to show the world as it truly is. The photographer should make sure that his/her photos remain ‘real’. Magazines and newspapers especially have a duty to their readers to tell the truth (though this may not always be the case…) By removing political leaders from pictures they are disillusioning the people. For aesthetic reasons, I do agree that some pictures should be manipulated to please the eye. Removing a post here and there such as the picture of the Kent State shooting, doesn’t take away from the effect of the distressed nun, so I believe that in this case, it is appropriate to remove the post. The most interesting picture is the one of China's Central Committee at the 1976 funeral of Chairman Mao. I think that it was a risky decision to remove the gang of four because it’s very obvious that they are missing plus there are thousands of people who saw them in the lineup.
I think that each photographer has the responsibility to show everyone a true photograph but also the ability to make the photo look better. The media's responsibility is to research the authenticity of the photo they are publishing. The conditions for altering photos should only be making the photo look better. Fixing red eye, blinking, in some cases weight and blurriness. The photo i found most interesting was number three, because now it takes a small amount of difficulty to accurately splice three images together on photo shop. But back in 1902 they had to do this all by hand and I think they did an incredible job even though they lied to thousands of people.
I think that the responsibilities that the photographer has is that he has to prove the authenticity of the the photo. If people wanted fake ones, they could easily make them themselves. People actually technically do spend money on fake photographs, except they are called paintings. I think that the newspaper, magazine, etc. companies should cite the sources of the photographs and have the photographer should be able to prove that it is real. I think that if you actually tell the people that this is a altered photo, that it should be OK. The other option is if you have to block out images because of excessive blood or nudity especially when revealing to the open public. I like the photo of Benito Mussolini because the photo was altered just to make him look more heroic, by deleting the horse handler.
I think that a photographers responsiblities are to prove how nice the photo is and how it turns out. I also think that it they have to show how our world really is today. The effects, emotions, the prettiness, the ugliness, and just everything! They (photographers) shoule make their photos seem more alive, something with our daily lives.
I think that the responsibilities newspapers, magazines, and all the other stuff reflect on people in this world, daily. For example, in newspapers they are about crisis that happen and in magazines about fashion or pop stars or "popular" people. I think that pictures that should be shown are to be of some importance, or of something that will amuse people. Something that interests them. I personally liked the first picture. With the guy being shot, or falling. I liked it because it had showed emotion, what was happening and just by looking at it you can guess what it probably meant.
Now days, techonology has been updated so that we can change our photos by using some programs such as photoshop. We can also put some very strange and cool effects to our photos. Fake photos are available now by using editing programs such as photoshop. You can make pictures brighter, make pictures darker, sketch effects, you can also draw somethings, you can make pictures look very old, and you can change colors. I usually take photos and use cool effects to make it more cooler, but it is also happening with the news articles and magazines. Those editing skills were not able before in 1900's. They had to edit with using their hand drawing skills if they needed to. My opinion is that if you get some picture that is another photographer's property, you should cite the source because in some magazines or news articles, they change the pictures with out getting the permission of the original photographers. It will make the original photographers mad and it is also stealing. I think you must have the source of original pictures before you edit it. I always cite the source before I edit pictures that I got from internet.
There are numerous times when I even doubt the crediblity of a photo even though I have taken the picture myself. It is crucial to distinguish the fake from the real thing. I must confess that I have "touched" photos in numerous occassions through photoshop but I believe one must always leave the place of origination and attribute the source. In doing so you give the credit to the original taker. I think of it as a visual bibliography in a way. The article says that faking photography has been around for such a long time but it is amazing how a photography taken in the 1940's can be still an issue. I would have thought that the major issue would come from today's photos with the power of the photoshop and what not...
The photographer has some responsibility to ensure that what is being published is in fact the original photo taken- if you're knowingly letting someone change your photo to alter the feeling or making it more dramatic then you're only adding to a lie that is being told to the public. A photograph is meant to depict the real event and REMAIN real.
As for the publication who prints the photos, they have a reputation as well to uphold. If they are printing altered photos that changed the meaning of the picture then people will begin to doubt any truth that comes from the publication. And in the end, in order to sell the story, they are the ones editing the photos to make them more interesting for the public... but aren't they at the same time almost telling a lie?
Minor editing, okay that's not a big deal. But removing people, adding more launched rockets, staging or pasting someone's head on another body is just crossing the line. Staging would be the worst. One point of war photography is to depict the candid action of the troops and not stage patriotic or drastic shots, such as the "Falling Soldier".
Out of all the photos in the slideshow... the one that intrigued me the most would be the actually upstaged one from Iwo Jima. The photo that looks most staged is actually not. Other one's are the Communist photos that have people removed... just to show who is in favor and who isn't at the time in photos is silly. Why not just print another photo and not those?
Photography loses its appeal when the photos are drastically edited. Pictures are meant to tell a story beyond the text, but when they are changed and altered to evoke a specific feeling, then they aren't doing what they are meant to.
I think fake photography should be labeled something more respectful. Edited photography better reflects what is done to these photos. The word fake has a connotation that suggests something negative and there is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with editing photos and tweaking them to add quality.
I think a photographer should be responsible for choosing where to publish his/her pictures; publishing them in a place that is certified and well renowned, rather than publishing them somewhere that is generally unknown and may distort the image. A photographer should not have the right to complain about their photo being edited if they put it in the wrong hands.
They (magazines, websties, etc...) should be under some kind of legally binding contract that prohibits them from altering a picture. If they are given a photo, they shouldn't have the right to alter it, because that could lead to troubles for the photographer and his reputation - a magazine altering a picture into something offensive could tarnish the image of a successful photographer.
A photo should only be altered if 1) the photographer or whoever took the picture is dead or 2) the photographer has given some publicist the right to alter the picture.
The picture of Lincoln (in the slideshow) was most likely the most interesting. I had thought, as many other people probably do, that that picture was entirely original, as it is such a familiar and popular picture of one of the more renowned presidents. The picture of Iwo Jima was also interesting, because of how recognized that picture is and how much acclaim it has been given. It is disappointing to be given somewhat solid proof that it is fake, even though it was hard to believe it was real originally.
The photographer's responsibilities were to make sure no-one back then knew that the pictures were all that time staged.
The publishers responsibilities were to make sure that the photos were real & not staged out.
The conditions should be when photographs are altered,they should include that the photos can be changed under appropriate permission.
I found the photo of the soliders bringing up the flag to it's peak the most interesting because of it's patrionic icon & it's portrail to the movie "Flags of our Fathers" & the movie "Letters from Iwo Jima", because this photo was said to be taken in Iwo Jima.
This hoax reminds me of an internet phenomenon called "Tourist guy", which is all about a tourist who visited New York, took a picture of himself on one of the twin towers, & secretly photoshopped an airplane heading for the building with a digital numbers 9, 11 & 01 on the bottom right-hand corner of the image.
That photo was taken in November 1997, & released to the internet, edited, after the 9/11 attack.
Post a Comment