Makers or Takers

[koraks]

But photographs that are not staged or seriously manipulated (as in photoshop) are nearer to reality: -

I trust that you are very well aware that many images of just about that same moment exist. Others prominently show the multitude of press making footage of the girl. I think that's a very compelling example of how framing and esp. what's being left out of the frame (without any 'manipulation' as such) emphasizes certain dimensions while all but eliminating others.

Ultimately, the whole argument hinges on some kind of implied conception of 'reality', and as soon as you start making it explicit, you'll find yourself in the middle of a philosophical minefield.

But of course, an argument is like a photo. You frame it so that certain things are left out. Life becomes simpler. Not more truthful, but that doesn't matter anymore at that point.

 

[BrianShaw]

NickUt’s famous photo was cropped for greater photographic and emotional impact. The editors made that photo a more powerful story. Made…

That does not diminish its impact at all. In fact, “manipulation” gave it the maximum impact possible. Perhaps more truthful, depending on the story being told. What was cropped out told a very different story.

 

[Milpool]

This all has very little to do with “making” vs “taking” (whatever that distinction is even supposed to be) and mostly to do with not liking digital manipulation. OP has let that slip several times already.

 

[TomR55]

I don't know if this is too far afield, but I'll mention it anyway: I am reading "Fake Photos" by Any Farid, The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series. The author focuses (no pun intended) on the role of Metadata and objective measurements in detecting various types of manipulations in the domain of digital imaging. This is excellent reading for anyone who is interested enough in some real-world forensic science in the domain of digital photography. I should caution potential readers---some mathematics is required to get the full grasp of the author's text.

I would imagine that someone might read this book and then ask why we cannot program a computer to apply some of these methods--but that conversation brings up another kettle of fish.

All said and done, the book (so far, haven't reached the end) makes me content to work in the analogue (film) domain--at least as far as image capture is concerned.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

NickUt’s famous photo was cropped for greater photographic and emotional impact. The editors made that photo a more powerful story. Made…

That does not diminish its impact at all. In fact, “manipulation” gave it the maximum impact possible. Perhaps more truthful, depending on the story being told. What was cropped out told a very different story.

But how is that different from an editor manipulating the text of an article to make a political point? Unfortunately, both pictures and text are often biased to get the public to react one way or the other. It becomes propaganda. It;s terrible to find out laterwhen you've been deceived into acting and believing one way and would have felt and acted the opposite had we really known the truth. That's what makes AI particularly so dangerous because it;s so easy to do. On the other hand, because it's easy, maybe the public will stop believing photos and text. We're all going to become skeptics.

 

[BrianShaw]

This all has very little to do with “making” vs “taking” (whatever that distinction is even supposed to be) and mostly to do with not liking digital manipulation. OP has let that slip several times already.

... a very appropriate bottom line.

 

[cliveh]

My point is that takers show something that is nearer to reality than makers.

 

[Vaughn]

But how is that different from an editor manipulating the text of an article to make a political point? ...

The difference of night and day. If the photographer had a longer lens on and had the time and opportunity to frame it exactly so, it would not need cropping to best record the event. No propaganda involved. One could say the truth is propaganda to those who wish to believe otherwise or perhaps prefer not know the truth.

The public needs to learn not to trust photos and texts...if they do not already. Especially many of the religious texts, IMO, but far too many people find it much easier to believe than to think it through.

The photo, Tomoko and Mother in the Bath, 1971, by W.E.Smith was staged*, yet the image is true and powerful. So powerful, Smith was beaten by thugs of the company responsible for the mercury poisoning of Tomoko. But the fact it was staged (as most portraits are), does not degrade the truth and power behind it.


* with agreement and cooperation of Tomoko's mother

 

[Vaughn]

My point is that takers show something that is nearer to reality than makers.

A 'straight' photograph can be visually closer to reality (but still far away), but not necessarily convey a fuller understanding for the viewer of the reality in front of the camera then a manipulated photograph can.

It is a challenge (out of many that we have) to convey a deep understanding of reality well with a straight image. For me, I found it takes as much consideration in the creating of the image on film (usually more), as I put into the other end (printing).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

A 'straight' photograph can be visually closer to reality (but still far away), but not necessarily convey a fuller understanding for the viewer of the reality in front of the camera then a manipulated photograph can.

It is a challenge (out of many that we have) to convey a deep understanding of reality well with a straight image. For me, I found it takes as much consideration in the creating of the image on film (usually more), as I put into the other end (printing).

Whose understanding of the truth are you conveying when you manipulate a photograph? Yours? Thank you for your opinion, but I would prefer to make my own decision as to what truth I believe. If the photographer can't make a point by telling the truth, then maybe it;s their failure as a photographer. Deceiving people isn't the way to do it.

 

[Vaughn]

Whose understanding of the truth are you conveying when you manipulate a photograph? Yours? Thank you for your opinion, but I would prefer to make my own decision as to what truth I believe. If the photographer can't make a point by telling the truth, then maybe it;s their failure as a photographer. Deceiving people isn't the way to do it.

What can an artist do but convey their own truth...it is up to the viewer to believe or not to believe, to learn or not to learn. To fully enjoy a movie, a novel, a photograph, one needs to suspend one's idea of truth and take in the artist's truth, to roll it around in one's mind, digest it, shit it out, and give it a good whiff.

 

[MattKing]

Whose understanding of the truth are you conveying when you manipulate a photograph? Yours? Thank you for your opinion, but I would prefer to make my own decision as to what truth I believe. If the photographer can't make a point by telling the truth, then maybe it;s their failure as a photographer. Deceiving people isn't the way to do it.

But manipulation may or may not decieve. It depends on the manipulation.
In fact, many manipulations serve to minimize the potential for deception.
The process of reducing a moving three dimensional scene full of colour and sound and scents into a two dimensional artifact that lacks sound and scent and at least distorts colour is itself a tremendous manipulation - by its nature it changes the reality into something fundamentally different.

 

[Don_ih]

I would prefer to make my own decision as to what truth I believe

Give that a try. Try to believe something you think is false is actually true. It's impossible. Something presents to you as true or false - you don't get to decide. And it's totally a matter of interpretation of the material at hand.