Truth In Photography

[Browncoat]

I'm looking for personal honesty and ethics in presentation, that's all. Don't pass your stuff off as something that it's not when that matters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/us/a-changed-dallas-grapples-with-its-darkest-day.html

Does this article strike you as ethical? Does it reek of the truth and excellence in journalism? No, it does not. Read just the opening paragraph again, as it sets the tone for the entire article. The purpose of this article, as most of what is written in the NY Times, is to push a political agenda.

In 1963, the Dallas sheriff was a gunslinger old school cowboy type who embodied the Texas spirit: a right-wing gun and Bible toting hillbilly. Today, the Dallas sheriff is a lesbian Hispanic woman, and a Democrat. The purpose of this article is to show that "old" Dallas was right-wing and wrong. But today, the "new" Dallas is better because it's left-wing.

The accompanying photo is taken from the fabled picket fence on the grassy knoll, where conspiracy theorists for 50 years have surmised that the fatal head shot to Kennedy was really from. Where is the disclosure of the intent this photo is really trying to convey? The photo itself is likely not altered, but that's really the point...

...which is there are no ethics in ANY of journalism. Why should the accompanying photos be required to disclose anything, when the articles themselves are often laced with innuendos? Every media source has some kind of slant, politically motivated or otherwise. There is no universal truth or source, it's all a matter of perspective. Many people have learned that they can't trust the face on the nightly news anymore, the days of Walter Cronkite have long since passed. Most "news" is little more than commentary, and the images are no different.

 

[Nathan Lanni]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/us/a-changed-dallas-grapples-with-its-darkest-day.html

Does this article strike you as ethical? Does it reek of the truth and excellence in journalism? No, it does not. Read just the opening paragraph again, as it sets the tone for the entire article. The purpose of this article, as most of what is written in the NY Times, is to push a political agenda.

I for one am not a fan of Kennedy as a martyr, but compared to the political offerings we have today I'd gladly take him as a very conservative democrat. My only wish is he had lived longer so we could see Hover indict him for his illicit affairs and their connection to illegal defense industry contracts. I think the country would look a lot different if the Kennedy dynasty had never taken root.

I know my comment is somewhat off topic but can't help with all the "I'm balling my eyes out for the John F. Kennedy who never was" crap going on right now.

 

[Browncoat]

Plain Jane to Barbie in 37 seconds:
.

 

[Scott Murray]

I think we should be asking another question, its not regarding the 'truth' in photography as once something is recorded there no longer can be 100% truth. Its more involving what is photography. And there are a few examples.

photography
1. The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces.
2. The art, practice, or occupation of taking and printing photographs.
3. A body of photographs.


2 out of the 3 examples above state one obvious thing 'The Art', so then we should delve into what is art, and hopefully we all know it can be many a thing in many a medium. I do not agree with all 'art' but it is art for arts sake. When we get into photoshopping etc this is another 'digital' form of an artists brush and we can all choose which brush we like. I have known abstract artists and I still think of them as loons, as I regard myself as a photographic artist, and this was way before I picked up a camera as I liked and still like to portray my work/photos/paintings/drawings/ to as realistic as possible. Yes I enhance things to enhance things but why not? Its like adding a bit of extra glow into the sunset painting to stand out, oh and do not forget to use 100% black on the palm silhouettes. The way I see it is photography is a lazy person brush and easel and it does not involve mixing colours on a palette and then applying them to canvas etc. Photography especially digital photography gives you so much more freedom to express yourself and how you have seen a certain scene. Why not embrace this and let in what others see and can create?

 

[Browncoat]

The spectrum of photography has two extremes:

1. Art
2. Historical record

At one end you have total creative freedom and artistic interpretation. At the other there is realism and accuracy. It's where the lines begin to blur that this debate surfaces.

The most obvious of this blurred line is in commercial advertising, such as in the video composite I posted above. You're in business and have a product or idea to sell. Who is going to sell it? Who appeals most to your target audience? More often than not, the product itself is manipulated digitally in images, and the spokes model most definitely is. This stuff has been around for generations. Before the digital age, these ads were drawn by hand. Companies want their products shown in the best possible light being used by attractive people. Sex sells and all that jazz. None of this is anything new.



I think where some people get confused is that they assign a morality element to news reporting that does not belong there. A media outlet is no different than Doris Dodson or Avon. The media outlet also has a product to sell. They are also looking to market to a target audience, sway opinion, and build brand loyalty. The news is a business.

​There is literally no difference.

 

[Grumpy Old Bag]

In my humble opinion this kind of senseless debate surfaces when people no longer really understand the Art of Photography.

Photography is a trade, not art. A tradesman uses tools. The tools of the trade need to be mastered to become an artist at any trade. The master of using tools in Photography becomes an artist at PAINTING WITH LIGHT. PAINTING WITH LIGHT is THE ART of Photography. Photography is not art in the hands of every owner of a camera and a computer.

A true artist in Photography strives to render an image as truthful as is possible in that given moment in time when the capture takes place. A true Photographer will spend lots of time and invest a great deal of capital, setting up a studio to create the desired lighting. A true Photographer will spend days waiting for the right moment to capture a sunset in that perfect moment in time. A true Photographer will know how to use the tools of the trade to create an artistic effect, if so desired, using light in that moment in time. A true Photographer will go to great lengths to get the desired setting for a capture. The true Photographer does not work in layers to paste in subjects or clone out distractions. A true Photographer is a visionary capturing images, not a computer operator creating ‘photographs’. A true Photographer will not use Photoshop to manipulate an image. A true Photographer no longer wishes to be called a Photographer.

A true Photographer is a master of using light creatively. Light changes constantly, changing colours but not physical elements in an image. Those manipulating images in Photoshop cannot call themselves Photographers as they are indeed Computer Operators using photographic equipment to create images of their own imagination. Using photographic equipment to create artistic impressions does not make anybody a Photographer.

As much as the tools of a Boilermaker is used to create sculptures, in steel, the artist using those tools cannot call himself a Boilermaker, although he may be using the Boilermakers tools. A Boilermaker is an artist at his trade when he is a master at doing what he is doing.

Photoshop is killing the true spirit of Photography. Photoshop is labeling Photography as deceitful and no longer believable. This truth in Photography will be vigorously contested by all Computer Operators calling themselves Photographers.

 

[Browncoat]

Wow.

I need an aspirin.

 

[Nathan Lanni]

Photography is a trade, not art. A tradesman uses tools. The tools of the trade need to be mastered to become an artist at any trade. The master of using tools in Photography becomes an artist at PAINTING WITH LIGHT. PAINTING WITH LIGHT is THE ART of Photography. Photography is not art in the hands of every owner of a camera and a computer.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

History just happens to disagree with yours.

 

[Browncoat]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

History just happens to disagree with yours.

That guy is a film photographer. The tools of his trade are obsolete and he doesn't understand digital, therefore anything he doesn't understand must be wrong.

 

[Photosail]

Uh no I do not, live in the past.
at the time she was new to photography and thought she could fix all composition mistakes in Photoshop. To some degree you can but if you want to spend hours and hours fixing each image in photoshop be my guest. I would rather take a good picture and have photo software enhance what I did.

 

[Scott Murray]

Truth in photography is the question...

Well the truth is unless its a criminal crime scene or something that requires photographic evidence, there will never ever be truth in photography. As photography and the scene is determined by the artist or photographer at how he would like it portrayed. And if you do not agree with this then get involved in crime scene investigation and anythign related and you will see that us as photographers have a pretty free reign at how we want our scene to be perscieved. Oh and if you do not like that perseption then fine find another photog .

 

[weebee]

Geesh, this almost takes the fun out of photography. J/K Too bad there are people out there looking for a fast buck on another's work. But, it's nothing new. All you can do is protect yourself as best as possible.

 

[STM]

As well as there are several programs out there to "improve" things, often in response to the "flavor of the month" you see in publications or the web. I have Portrait Professional, which is very popular but in most cases, not all, in my opinion it goes overboard. There is a widely held misconception that when doing portraiture (women especially) that their skin must be perfectly smooth. In all my years of photographing women, I have never seen a woman with perfectly smooth skin. Just look at all of those "super models" without makeup. Some have faces that could stop a clock. Many of the programs, as well as PS, are often overused to create women who look like mannequins. This is a very unnatural look if you ask me.

Below is a portrait I did several years ago, not my best but not bad. Deona had a very good complexion but it was not perfect, who's is? On the left is the image with just a little bit of smoothing in PS on her cheeks and forehead. On the right is what Portrait Professional did with the same image without any work in PS. It is way over-smoothed and that is with the image controls set to minimum. Digital looks "plastic" enough on its own in my opinion without any extra help. I showed her the over-smoothed one and she didn't like it at all. She was, however, delighted with the other. And that was an impression by someone who was really unfamiliar with is considered "fashionable" in portraiture. In the end, what the customer wants should be the driving factor.