Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Business
Truth In Photography
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Browncoat" data-source="post: 222309" data-attributes="member: 1061"><p>The spectrum of photography has two extremes:</p><p></p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Art</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Historical record</li> </ol><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]60148[/ATTACH][ATTACH]60149[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>There is literally no difference.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Browncoat, post: 222309, member: 1061"] The spectrum of photography has two extremes: [LIST=1] [*]Art [*]Historical record [/LIST] 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. [ATTACH=CONFIG]60148._xfImport[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]60149._xfImport[/ATTACH] 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Business
Truth In Photography
Top
