To get a more accurate scope on photo-manipulation and how people feel about it, it is important to take a look at the opinions of others.
Dan Heller, Photojournalist:
"It's important to realize one fact about photography (in any its forms, film and/or digital): to get a photo to render real life, one must do a certain amount of manipulation. The reason is a simple matter of science: the technical limitations in film, digital sensors, scanners, photo paper, and even computer monitors, mean that reproduced images cannot match the range or quality of light that nature produces in real life. Therefore, it becomes the burdensome task of the photographer to work within technical limitations to render something that approximates light. And, this is where the tricky stuff lies and where people part on their opinions."
"So, answer the question, already: "What is pure photography? It just keeps getting more complicated, doesn't it? People refer to it as pictures that most accurately convey what the scene really looked like, as if you were standing there alongside the photographer. That's more about photo "journalism" a single aspect of the much wider spectrum of photographic expressions. But, even in photojournalism, "distorting the truth" is what photography is all about. One man's truth is another man's "spin."Ok, so instead of asking "what is pure photography?", let's ask the more pertinent question:
What exact point along that spectrum of distortion lies the division between an acceptable representation of reality and an unacceptable distortion of truth?"
"Alteration of an image is one thing; lying is another. Granted, there may be a grey line, and perhaps the industry is trying to portray the most conservative face so as to appease the luddites within our culture. But in the long run, if they do not handle this well, it could make the industry itself less credible in the long run. Unless and until they administer rules that address the real issues of photographic integrity, the industry will not be perceived to be credible in its own self-policing."
Dan Heller agrees with photo-manipulation. His opinions above were taken from his essay; 'What is 'pure' photography?' However Dan is talking about a slightly different form of photo-manipulation. His images need to be edited so they stand out to newspapers and magazines. So lets forget about photo-manipulation in the context of 'natural beauty' for a while and look at photo-manipulation as a whole. As Dan says, there is a grey area between enhancing an image and making it into something new and fake. At what point does manipulation turn the photograph into a new image and something that is deemed 'fake'?
Many people argue that the moment an image is opened in photoshop, or other image editing software, and the brush touches the image, or the colours are enhanced, you have created a completely new image. A 'fake' image that does not accurately reflect the reality of the situation in which the photograph was taken. However, as a photographer I disagree with this opinion. I agree with photo-manipulation to a certain extent. I agree to enhancing the colours of an image to make it look more like the lighting conditions in which the photograph was taken. I agree with selective cropping, it still shows the original scene but just a certain area of it. I also agree with creative manipulation, something that is obviously not real. For example the image below.
Images like this are about photography as an art form, such creative manipulation should be 'allowed' and not deemed 'fake'. However, as you can see in the image above, models are still being airbrushed. This is something i do not agree with. If manipulation is being used in such a way that it shapes our society and the way we choose to look, or any such personal elements, other than passive advertising, I think this is wrong. Photographers should not have the power to transform a person. It is not real, it is not true and 90% of the time it is not realistic, yet people still aspire to be like those models.
Dan Heller agrees with photo-manipulation. His opinions above were taken from his essay; 'What is 'pure' photography?' However Dan is talking about a slightly different form of photo-manipulation. His images need to be edited so they stand out to newspapers and magazines. So lets forget about photo-manipulation in the context of 'natural beauty' for a while and look at photo-manipulation as a whole. As Dan says, there is a grey area between enhancing an image and making it into something new and fake. At what point does manipulation turn the photograph into a new image and something that is deemed 'fake'?
Many people argue that the moment an image is opened in photoshop, or other image editing software, and the brush touches the image, or the colours are enhanced, you have created a completely new image. A 'fake' image that does not accurately reflect the reality of the situation in which the photograph was taken. However, as a photographer I disagree with this opinion. I agree with photo-manipulation to a certain extent. I agree to enhancing the colours of an image to make it look more like the lighting conditions in which the photograph was taken. I agree with selective cropping, it still shows the original scene but just a certain area of it. I also agree with creative manipulation, something that is obviously not real. For example the image below.
Images like this are about photography as an art form, such creative manipulation should be 'allowed' and not deemed 'fake'. However, as you can see in the image above, models are still being airbrushed. This is something i do not agree with. If manipulation is being used in such a way that it shapes our society and the way we choose to look, or any such personal elements, other than passive advertising, I think this is wrong. Photographers should not have the power to transform a person. It is not real, it is not true and 90% of the time it is not realistic, yet people still aspire to be like those models.
No comments:
Post a Comment