Credibility is a vital and dire aspect of being a photographer or a photojournalist. Photography is an individual's window in to a frozen reality. If that reality is altered in any way, it's no longer a reality. It becomes a tempered abstract. Photographers lose credibility everyday when they Photoshop and edit pictures until they reach a point of absolute falsehood. Models, actors/actresses, even political media temper with the true state of things. It's quite frustrating. What's the point of putting Scarlett Johansen on the cover of Rolling Stone for her beauty if someone is going to slim her waist, perfect her skin, and make her hair look shinier than it is if the editor himself hardly finds her attractive? It's as if she really isn't as beautiful as we all thought. Photographers everywhere have lost credibility: "Is this real? Or did they edit it?" Such a thing is regularly heard
2. Time Magazine alteration: how was it changed and how did it affect the meaning?
The shot of OJ Simpson originally proved to be lighter, clean, and not frightening; while the edited, Time Magazine's photo displayed a more sinister, barbaric, startling looking man. Along with that, they darkened his skin color, which is quite offensive.
The meaning was prevalently affected between the real photo and the other. As it said in the article, Time had already decided that the man in the mugshot was guilty, so they made darn sure he looked that way. Time wasn't telling a true story, it told a twisted story that Time wanted to hear, losing much credibility from its ex-audience.
3. Difference between Ethics and Taste:
Ethics is referred to as the issues of lying and duplicity, while taste regards issues of sex, blood, and violence and things like that. As written in the article, damages or betrayal of ethics results as the bruising of a photographer's credibility.
4. How does one decide to publish/post a photo?
A photographer posts/publishes a photo if he finds that the community should know about this information. The old saying "Seeing is believing" is an accurate statement. Visual information is generally more powerful to a public than solely words. To have a photo represent literary information is emotionally powerful. This is why photographers tend to be very selective in which pictures they post/publish. More often than not, it is essential for the public to certain things--we think and act collectively in the U.S.
5. What principle does the writer base his decision on in regards to whether or not to take or publish a photo?
As the writer explicates, photographers often face a difficult conflict of whether or not to practice humanity, or to be an artist. The decision of course is hard, because in a way the photographer is helping, he's raising an awareness that wasn't quite lit yet. On the other hand, it is more immediately demanding to help right then and there, every human being is almost obligated. The author's principle is to do the latter. He says that it is his obligation as a human being, as an individual, to put down his camera and help with the situation. He says that it isn't what most photographers would agree with, but he can't do otherwise.
6. Context of a photo:
A magazine or newspaper loses its credibility if what they're trying to sell is pretty much a huge lie. The photo is hardly real--it's downright photoshopped up to her neck--the piece itself is a lie. The writer exemplified, that if the New York Times utilized the same photo that say, Weekly World News did, the NYT would lose credibility. The context of a photo really comes down to who is credible and who is not; or rather, who is going to lie, and who is going to tell us the truth.
It's almost like deciding whether or not a movie is good. If I go to Fried Green Tomatoes, I'll get the facts. If I go watch the MTV Movie Awards, I may not be getting very good information.
7. When is it okay to change a photo?
Personally, I am in agreement with the writer of the article. He describes the difference between an accidental change and an essential change, which is merely the difference between a meaningful and highly notable change, and on that is really, quite small.
As I've previously stated, a photograph is supposed to be a moment in time that is unchanged and untouched. Any sort of alteration of the photo would almost ruin that memory. It could be even as small as removing someone's zit. That zit was there when the photo was taken, so keep it there. However, I'm not as fervent about the photo being a lie. It's okay to very slightly touch up the photo if wanted. But if it were me, I'd feel like a fraud, it's just not what I truly look like. It's what people wish I look like.
8. Give an example of photo manipulation, and why did it happen?
Photos have been manipulated since programs like Photoshop came in to existence. The pressure to continue to manipulate has been increasing as the media continues to sell the idea of everyone caring about image and perfection; not just in fashion, the idea is present in every aspects of our lives. The Coke can being removed from a Pulitzer Prize winner is an example. Why does it matter that he was drinking Coke? Because it makes him look unprofessional perhaps. But if the man won a Pulitzer Prize, an achievement that is based on intelligence and talent, wouldn't you think that the general public is aware of that? The Coke can apparently ruined the shot. But if it did, take a different one. The public doesn't deserve to be lied to.
9. How do these ethics apply to my photography and myself?
These principles, it seems, don't exactly apply to me. I understand entirely what he says about credibility, context, and the real state of things; I especially understand what he's saying about our history, and how we owe it to our future selves to not alter our reality. However, no one is looking at my artwork. I am simply in a digital photo class, with no credibility to talk about. Or rather, the general public neither knows about nor cares about my credibility.
However, in regards to myself, I plan to take photography a little more seriously as an audience member. It's important to know whether or not something is real.
10. Altering photos' affect on society and our perception of reality:
It's quite obvious how our perceptions of reality are; they're almost nonexistent. Most people don't really know what reality is. Society, or the media, is the reason that people's perceptions are so screwed. Girls take hundreds of pictures in one setting, and delete 75% of them because they don't look good enough in them, when in reality, that's what they look like 75% of the time. Realizing such a thing would bring on some heavy desolation, because their reference is the cover of Glamour. And the cover of Glamour has no credibility whatsoever, because even those women that we find oh so beautiful are in fact edited just as much as we edit our own photos. The act of editing is incredibly accessible now; now everyone edits their photos, or deletes their "bad ones" before uploading them to Facebook.
We have no perception of reality. And society is the reason for that.
No comments:
Post a Comment