Jump to content

Article from 1984 discussing the impact of computers on photography


Recommended Posts

"to convince other(s) of the truthfulness of his lies."
—Pablo Picasso

I just enjoy taking photographs, master.

Should I be looking truthfulness in lies? Or, looking for context or perception.?

Sorry, master, I just enjoy taking photos of the world as I see it.

Have I wronged ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Without seeing the camels, I am not sure what to say about it." Glen._h.

My mates Freddy G ,a master photographer, has taken a photo of himself and Iron Eye, climbing Mt Everest with a camel...yes, a camel. And they reached the summit.

They, are waiting with baited breath, to receive the Nat Geo award ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I found @movingfinger's original post (and the article) fascinating. The thread is interesting and I'm sorry I missed it in June when I was away from PN doing other things.

I don't want to drag it out, just add a couple of 'contextual' points that I believe are important. The original post (and the thread) seem to me to be primarily about the future potential  (stated in 1984) to manipulate digital images and videos within 10 years and the current opportunities for doing so. Particularly w.r.t. news images and videos.

A couple of points made in the thread were about (declining) trust in news photos and the importance of editorial guidelines. I think @samstevens' comment about 'who made the photo and for what purpose?' is a good one. My 'contextual' point is that questions about the 'truth' of - and trust in - media is not limited to photos but also extends to print, on-line media, videos, etc. All visual media have been, are and can be (to some extent) manipulated. Usually not by advanced technical manipulation such as 'deep fakes' but simply through the selection of submitted media and 'old school' manipulation such as cropping/video-editing. Ansel Adams is well known for his extensive 'dodging and burning' process in up to 30+ steps to produce his final images of what he had envisioned. Yet his images were regarded as a 'reliable representation' of US landscapes (including Yosemite).

Very few - if any - news media outlets can be considered as 'objective' (or 'true').  ome kind of selection/editing process is always at work. Often targeted towards the outlet's primary consumer groups (a subset of the general population). A few media outlets genuinely do their best to be 'neutral', i.e. 'objective'.  Media outlets are therefore often classified as 'left-leaning', 'right-leaning' or 'somewhere in the middle' depending on the text, photos and videos that they publish. In this wider context, the question of whether a photo has been (lightly) edited is IMHO is less important than the 'transparency' of the media selection and editing process.

Nowadays, 'Digital Awareness' courses emphasize the need to 'critical' of on-line media. For example, can people find reliable corroboration evidence? Can they find the same photos and/or videos via independent websites? Journalists are taught to check multiple (reliable on-line) references in their research. So the watchword is not completely 'distrust' (of everything) but 'criticality' in the sense of 'compare and verify through multiple sources'.

We've all seen very different photos/videos of US presidents Biden and ex-president Trump on different media outlets. Some (depending on the outlet) depict an (ex-)president looking 'relaxed, vital and energetic'. Others depict an (ex)-president looking much less 'relaxed, vital or energetic'. Which 'spin' media outlets put on photos and videos, depends IMHO on their political affiliation and on the specific consumer groups they want to appeal to. In this wider context of wider 'media manipulation', the (light) editing of photos is IMHO less important.

Coming back to my point about 'Digital Awareness' courses. it's perhaps a sad fact that we all need to be more 'critical' of images, videos and text published digitally or even in print. We have no option than to rely on the integrity and processes of (reliably) published media. That's why I think that @samstevens's comment is important. IMHO, these days, the 'credibility' of an image is not to be found in the 'image content' but in the reputation of the publisher and photo- or videographer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. "We have no option than to rely on the integrity and processes of (reliably) published media. That's why I think that @samstevens's comment is important. IMHO, these days, the 'credibility' of an image is not to be found in the 'image content' but in the reputation of the publisher and photo- or videographer" Mikemoral.

Very nice thoughts. I love too believe.

However, think of Adam and Eve and that serpent . 

 

 

 

Edited by Allen Herbert
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...