Love this photo! Thanks for bringing it up.
Matt, your last statement confirmed my point. It's the only way to prove the photo hasn't ben played with.Only for news reportage,
Not for art or commerce (advertising).
And probably not for the sort of story that Migrant Mother would have been used to illustrate.
And If the NY Times published the photo, they would most likely have cropped it to eliminate the thumb.
This thread isn't about reportage or documentary photos.
...
The full frame image will have to be disclosed to all parties anyways, so if anyone has any issues, production of the full frame can be required,
+1The thumb was removed because it made it clear that it was a transitory moment and not the gleaming, forever in time frozen moment, iconic slum-romanticizing of a mud-Madonna she was aiming for.
The manipulation is troublesome.
In the same way that when it is said something “is not about sex”, it’s more about sex than ever.
Unless the photo is clearly ethereal and fantasy, finding out that the photo was manipulated is always some kind of disappointing.
The more well steeped in photography will accept burn and dodge as the equivalent of eloquence and rhetorical technique.
But removing and adding elements on anything with the pretense of being documentary, will always be troubling, no matter how many internal and external excuses you can come up with.
Another good example of our ages increased affinity for building strawmen to aid a personal narrative of victimhood, or to put the target into a generic, easy to ridicule role.To further rub the nose of the purists, here some examples of hand colored prints, a well regarded skill and practiced by many traditional photographers.
Japan tourist souvenir photo album
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/japan-tourist-souvenir-photo-album.163820/
We all know what you would do, but it is not what Dorothea Lange did. She removed a distracting element in her photograph. Here's what you said when I suggested I might hypothetically remove a distracting cow from my photograph:Do not put words in my mouth. If I had photographed it and the thumb bothered me, I would have cropped it differently. No cows were injured nor killed in this post.
If you cannot change your position, camera angle or lens to not show only one cow, then by demonstrated facts you would have shown me that your photographs are not worth my time to look at. I would rather interact with people who actually know what they are doing.
We all know what you would do, but it is not what Dorothea Lange did. She removed a distracting element in her photograph. Here's what you said when I suggested I might hypothetically remove a distracting cow from my photograph:
Seems like Dorothea Lange, by not changing her position, camera angle or lens to not show the thumb, then by demonstrated facts she would have shown you that her photograph is not worth your time to look at. You would rather interact with people who actually know what they are doing.
Meanwhile you are cropping out distracting elements in your photographs in the darkroom.
Actually, if anything, I'm arguing AGAINST a digital-vs-analog divide....
Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother", perhaps one of the most iconic photographs of the 20th century, was manipulated. Lange removed the thumb from the edge of the frame. That doesn't in any way reduce the value of the image, or its emotional or moral impact. If anything, that manipulation brings it into the realm of art.
And that is almost universally unnecessary, because "playing" with a photo only matters when the "played" with photo becomes inconsistent with the actual, admissible direct (rather than demonstrative) evidence, which a photo usually is not.Matt, your last statement confirmed my point. It's the only way to prove the photo hasn't ben played with.
Why would counsel even submit a photo that had been altered? It only gives the other side ammunition to weaken the testimony the photo purports to support. It's like submitting documents where words have been erased or scratched out. Look at all the political arguments people have had recently about documents where words and sentences have been redacted. All these modifications create doubt as to their truthfulness and meaning of the original.
I'd love to be the lawyer doing the cross examination of the witness with the adulterated photo and missing thumb, "What other things did you delete from the photo or modify that you didn't tell us about?" And then, "What other things in your testimony did you conveniently leave out?"Clearly the thumb was the left thumb, so had political ramifications to the right. There were also likely national security considerations that led to the redaction of the thumb.
It is demonstrative evidence, not direct evidence.Why would counsel even submit a photo that had been altered? It only gives the other side ammunition to weaken the testimony the photo purports to support. It's like submitting documents where words have been erased or scratched out. Look at all the political arguments people have had recently about documents where words and sentences have been redacted. All these modifications create doubt as to their truthfulness and meaning of the original.
A viewer of a photo outside of a court does not have the original to compare too. He's relying on the photographer to present a truthful depiction of the scene as photographed. This is particularly important in documentary and photojournalism pictures. On the other hand, art pictures can be given more leeway. On the other hand, creating a book of Iceland Landscape pictures where you cloned in skies from pictures you shot in Arizona would be untruthful even if presented as art. Most people consider a picture as a slice of time from one location, not two slices from different countries. Of course this is changing and maybe in a few years everyone will forget what photography is. That will be a shame because then photography will be no different than painting a picture.It is demonstrative evidence, not direct evidence.
You submit something to help make more clear and visual the circumstances described in the testimony.
Counsel might choose to have the shadows lightened, highlights darkened, and contrast enhanced to make the subject more visible.
Counsel might choose to submit a highly cropped and enlarged portion of the entire frame, again to make the particularly interesting part of the subject more visible.
All of those perfectly permissible visibility enhancing manipulations wouldn't affect the reliability of the demonstrative evidence, so wouldn't in most cases be questioned. The only exception might be if the visibility of the subject of the photographs was in fact one of the issues in the proceedings. In that circumstance, the photographs couldn't be used to address that issue, and either counsel l or the judge would have to caution the jury about that.
In pre-trial disclosure, the full, unmanipulated frame would also be made available to the other side, so they would have the opportunity to have their own versions prepared - for instance if they wished to make reference to other items in the background which the direct evidence didn't include (most often because their relevance wasn't recognized). If the other side intended to refer to those other background details, they wouldn't be able to merely rely on the alternative versions of the photograph to "prove" them, because by themselves the photographs aren't probative - they would need to question one or more of the witnesses at the scene to substantiate them.
Pulling this all back to the theme of the thread, "manipulation" is a word that by itself has little weight. It has to be accompanied with some sort of qualification or explanation. By itself it just means something like "movements" or "changes". One has to characterize the manipulations - are they enhancements, clarifications, simplifications, falsifications, etc. before one can exercise any value judgments about the manipulations themselves. As two dimensional photography (in particular black and white two dimensional photography) is by its nature a huge manipulation of reality, it isn't particularly useful to try to separate the manipulations into permissible and impermissible categories - courts of law certainly don't do that, and the art world would be silly to do so.
We agree on the digital/analog issue. I was not sure.
As for removing a thumb. I see that as an aesthetic action intended to create a better looking, non-distracting image. Whenever that is done, it can open a door to criticism- and rightfully so, but this seems pretty minor. Personally, I object more to adding to an image (e.g. adding a dramatic sky to an image where no clouds were present) than to removing a minor distracting element. And I understand in some commercial activity, adding a sky may be the difference between getting paid or not (for instance photographing homes for real estate ads), much like leaving in blemishes on a formal portrait may lead to not getting paid. In the first example (real estate), it may not be suspected by the viewer that there were changes, but the artistic value of the image is small (it is just an ad for a house). In the second case a viewer usually would suspect the image was modified (or make-up was used), plus the practice is known and accepted by people in general. Everyone knows that when you go for your senior picture in high school, the photographer can remove that zit on your forehead. In the real estate case if you photographed a house frontally , but removed the looming sky scraper behind it and added picturesque mountains, this would certainly be seen as fraud, both for the removal and the addition. If the image was intended to be artistic, I would not consider it a photograph. A graphic image yes, but not a photograph. The tricky part comes in with minor modifications (like removing a thumb).
So, I would also say, one thing we have not really touched on much here, and which is very relevant, is the acceptance of practices both within the photographic community, and the larger community of photographers, viewers, and purchasers of photography and photographic services. That acceptance can be termed as "Standards", whether it be formal or informal standards. And no standard will ever be universal within a world of art.
To dissect this topic a bit more, let us consider a dictionary. A dictionary is not an absolute guide to some exact meaning of words that reside in the heavens along with Platos other "Ideas", but rather a compilation by some recognized group of people of their best estimate of the current usage of various words. (A few nouns may coincide with some of Platos Ideas, but that is beyond this topic). Over years, decades, and centuries those usages can change, and the dictionaries (if the editors are doing their jobs) will change with the usage. There are many things that can lead to changes in usage. One of those things is technology.
Some people object to talking about "analog" vs. "digital" photography. Others argue there is not difference, it is just the medium used, and thus invalidate their own argument, because the medium is different, and in precise language, we should have some way to indicate that difference, whatever the relevance to various parties may be.
So when we say "this is a photograph", that should have some meaning in language. Using terms like "this is an analog photograph" or "this is a digital photograph" is at least an attempt to add some clarity. This is part of English speakers (and analogously other speakers of other languages will go through this) moving to come to informal agreement (to hopefully get captured by dictionary editors) on what to call two things that are different, but perhaps originate form something common (making pictures with a camera).
That type of thinking was part of what led me to create this group (which was flop in terms of interest): https://www.photrio.com/forum/groups/photrio-photographic-arts-standards.154/group
Such standards could at least get Photrio to agree on what to call things rather than trip over semantics as attempts are made to argue philosophical points in photography.
You might be surprised. I just don't think my way is the only way.Well it is just good to know that you do not meet my standards.
You might be surprised. I just don't think my way is the only way.
You’re also a retired divorcee, therefore you’ve been wrong at least onceThat is ok, but my thinking is always better. I am a retired engineer so lets just assume that I am always right. View attachment 255764
You’re also a retired divorcee, therefore you’ve been wrong at least once
Can someone give us a practical usable definition of Art that we can build consensus on? Perhaps a max of three sentences -- no run-on or compound sentences. No big words that in turn need to be defined....
Such standards could at least get Photrio to agree on what to call things rather than trip over semantics as attempts are made to argue philosophical points in photography.
Can someone give us a practical usable definition of Art that we can build consensus on? Perhaps a max of three sentences -- no run-on or compound sentences. No big words that in turn need to be defined.
Because if we can't make it that short and sweet, it will be of little use to us. We won't build a consensus on gobbly-gook.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?