Whatever shot I take is already going to be from my own mind garden and framed with a headline by editor to suit his/her paymaster. To then start manipulating the shot as well...way way too much attempted mind control.
OK, Craig, where would you stop? Would you photograph blind so as not to insert your bias? What's pitiful is not considering all the aspects of this situation. Believing that one simple rule will save your frome being deceived is pathetic.
This post has reminded me of an old (long before Digital was even thought of) photographic truism and that is: "cameras do not lie, photographers lie") With the advent of "Photo-Shop", it probably is worse today! Personally I do not believe what I am shown in any PJ picture today...........Regards!The refugee photo is so highly manipulated that it obviously represents photo commentary, not photojournalism. To me, it looks more like a staged painting than a real photograph.
The drug addict photo appears dark. Since there is a plain shadow in the photo, it appears that the photograph was intentionally darkened. Did this occur when it was taken, or in photoshop, and does it really make a difference?
Neither of these images bother me because neither represents news where the details of the images are needed in order to represent facts. Both of theses images were manipulated to convey emotion, not to change factual events.
Framing and composition can give false facts just a easily as photoshop. There was a recent photo of a refugee child wandering through the desert, separated from his family. Another image taken at the same time demonstrated that he was separated from his family by 30 feet. Both photographs were real, but composition and framing gave completely different representations of reality.
The best safeguard we have in the developed world, is that many events are photographed by multiple photographers and obvious manipulation will be brought to light.
No elements were removed or added, and no false statements were made in captions/cutlines explaining what was being shown. That's the difference.
This post has reminded me of an old (long before Digital was even thought of) photographic truism and that is: "cameras do not lie, photographers lie") With the advent of "Photo-Shop", it probably is worse today! Personally I do not believe what I am shown in any PJ picture today...........Regards!
Ted Turner found that out too late. His colorized B&W movies were abominations.
you dont know that.
you don't know if money changed hands for junky shot, those syringes might have nothing in them, maybe two girls didnt want to shoot up that moment but a bit of money and ah why not... and the reason you cant say for certain whether thats what happened here or not is because too many journalists have pulled all those tricks before.
you can see from shadows its a high hard light - but highlights arent telling you that as he's deliberately bullshitting you with highlights by pulling them back in post so that girls look grimey and now the time of day it was taken is disguised.
about?You've got to be joking!
you dont know that.
you don't know if money changed hands for junky shot, those syringes might have nothing in them, maybe two girls didnt want to shoot up that moment but a bit of money and ah why not... and the reason you cant say for certain whether thats what happened here or not is because too many journalists have pulled all those tricks before.
you can see from shadows its a high hard light - but highlights arent telling you that as he's deliberately bullshitting you with highlights by pulling them back in post so that girls look grimey and now the time of day it was taken is disguised.
I'm not even going to dignify that ignorant slur with a response. You clearly have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about...both photographers have a long career that's held them accountable, and their current employers have ironclad rules on that, too - facts which you are happy to ignore. Unbelievable...
+1I had read somewhere that journalists were not allowed to retouch their images, so they chose their shots and focal lengths to suit their goals. Wide angled lenses close up and above to create a more pointed appearance of someone they didn't like- often portrayed someone to be more sinister. They'd have people face out of the frame leaving mostly negative space to create loneliness. People in the distance facing into the frame with negative space hinted vulnerability. They could sway people's emotions based on how they treated the subject rather than manipulating the actual negative.
I'm not even going to dignify that ignorant slur with a response. You clearly have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about...both photographers have a long career that's held them accountable, and their current employers have ironclad rules on that, too - facts which you are happy to ignore. Unbelievable...
Yes, conspiracies...look, there's a boogyman behind the bushes.
These photographers both have a solid and respectable career. That didn't happen by accident. The simple fact remains that antics like choreographing subjects would ruin their reputations and their careers. I think you're kidding yourself if you actually believe they're willing to sacrifice their good names in such a stupid way.
Nachtwey spent at least a year on this essay. That's more than enough time to spend with subjects, winning their confidence and waiting for moments just like this to happen on their own...moments, by the way, that are not exactly rare in a devastating, unprecedented situation like the opioid epidemic. Go spend some time in places like the Downtown East Side in Vancouver -- you'll see scenes a lot crazier than that on a regular basis.
You are free to make whatever wild speculation you want about a career you clearly know nothing about...but don't slander the good names of two greats in the industry.
+1
Photographers have always manipulated the reproduced image in many ways. Anyone who thinks photographs 'tell the truth' is kidding themself.
I'm not sure I understand why you think that dealing with the mask is "processing". Somehow it seems to me that dealing with a negative image with reversed colours requires more "processing" than dealing with a simple colour mask.Look fellas, film especially C-41, has been digitally processed since the 90's. You gotta deal with that orange mask somehow.
Conspiracies everywhere.
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?