(Not attacking you personally) But to be indifferent and unmoved by third world issues even if by skewed photographic evidence seems cold hearted.
Originally Posted by Helinophoto
Check this women out. She is a photographer!
This is a must read about a real photographers courage documenting third world issues...
"About a year ago, I got in a taxi in Cairo; after leaving for the destination, the driver switched course, pulled over, and attacked me with a knife. He asked me to undress, but I got angry and refused. I was sitting in the backseat, and when I tried to reach for the driver’s side door to open it, he pinned me down with his seat and started beating me on the face. At some point I was able, numerous times, to open the cab doors screaming for help; the highway was busy with cars, but nobody stopped, and he kept dragging me inside the car each time I tried to escape. After about 15 minutes of fighting inside the cab and several more attempts to flee, I managed to finally convince the driver to take my money instead of hurting me further. I consider myself extremely lucky not to have lost consciousness and escape reasonably unharmed, escape before something more gruesome happened. In light of all the recent events in Egypt, I am posting this picture from that terrible night in Cairo - and sharing my story in support of Egyptian women and their defiance against sexual violence.
~ Rena Effendi
PostScript: The taxi driver was never found. The police never gave the final report on investigation.
*Born 1977 in Baku, Azerbaijan and based in Cairo, Egypt, Rena Effendi is a freelance photographer, journalist and mom. Educated as a linguist, she took her first photographs in 2001. Ever since, she has photographed issues of conflict, social justice and the oil industry’s effects on people and the environment (www.refendi.com). Her work has been widely published in Newsweek, Time, The Financial Times, International Herald Tribune, National Geographic and others."
Last edited by vpwphoto; 02-21-2013 at 10:27 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Has photography reflected the truth regardless if it's digital or analog? Photojournalism is a human endeavor and human beings always have cognitive biases. The only way to see the truth is to see it for your self. Even then, everybody will have a different take what is in front of their eyes.
“We are buried beneath the weight of information, which is being confused with knowledge; quantity is being confused with abundance and wealth with happiness.
We are monkeys with money and guns.”
― Tom Waits
Vpwphoto: I know it may have come across as cold, maybe it is, but it was in reference to the never ending war and famine and tragedy journalism, that is praised, while the actual people in the shot don't receive aquat. The photo doesn't make any difference, other than to the photographer taking it, before he was able to leave the place.
I've served in the UN and been foot-on-ground protecting civilians (contrary to killing people to win their hearts and minds) in a war zone, so I actually do have a lot of empathy for victims of war and terror. But as far as i am concerned, only one war photo ever made a difference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc the photographer sure didn't make that with a silly competition in the back of his mind.
We're force-fed tragedy every day, we are no longer moved by what we see, we are numbed.
If the Vietnam photo was made today in Palestine, then imo no one would care.
The whole genera is thus filled with chlicès, again IMO
I'll respect your opinion. And Rena, is not a "visitor" to the places she photographs, she is a resident by birth to that part of the world.
Good point about the horrific photographic memory you point to above.
A 'straight process' such as what? My monitor? Your monitor? The photographer's monitor? A print on color photographic paper? A print on B&W photographic paper? An inkjet print? A CRT television screen? The screen on the back of the dslr that took the picture? A digital picture frame? A histogram of pixel value? High an low voltages converted to "1" and "0" and printed out on a piece of paper? A photogram of the memory stick that contains the information?
Originally Posted by polyglot
You have to CONVERT a digital file into either light values or pigments to see it. The 'original' is an abstract entity, you cannot see it.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The whole thing is pointless. Gotta love the indignant posturing but the fact is that news is filler for ads. Journalism is so dead it wreaks. Truth is perception. Facts are now arrived at by consensus. Where have you people been?
That's just, like, my opinion, man...
I think reference to allowed manipulations in the darkroom are still relevant to the issue of manipulation of digital images. Visual literacy developed in the context of analogue photography and continues to be influenced by it.
An end-to-end calibrated process. Photography as a physical process is very quantifiable so with a imaging chain you can know that your outputs match the inputs within a known error margin. Typical modern systems are good to a delta-E of about 2, which is a not perceptible to humans. Claiming that a RAW file is abstract because you can't see it is silly; it's a collection of numbers that have formal meaning. There doesn't need to be a human present and directly absorbing the information for the information to be real.
Originally Posted by ic-racer
Do some research on monitor and printer calibration, it's a very well-understood (though rarely by photographers) domain. Suffice to say, we can make extremely accurate visual recordings of reality, and we can quantify exactly how accurate they are.
Yes, (and this is not meant in disagreement with your point) but the long history of darkroom manipulation of analog images is often referenced by apologists for unrestrained digital editorializing. (Yes, I recognize that I have used at least two prejudicial terms there.) Their argument - there is no philosophical difference between the two. My question, is there? My fear, (another weighted word) is that the sheer scale of manipulations possible on millions of computers today is a virtual death-blow to the concept of integrity in news photography.
Originally Posted by Allen Friday
My point... though it is often very easy to detect the editorial slant of printed or spoken word, the manipulation of images can sometimes be far more subtle and insidious.
Last edited by Toffle; 02-21-2013 at 09:31 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada
Ansel Adams had the Zone System... I'm working on the points
system. First I points it here, and then I points it there...
So very true...he even references this very thing at the beginning of the article when talking about the Planned Parenthood quote. The percentages cited by the Senator were wrong, but no one checked the facts, they printed and quoted and gave the guy all kinds of air time. Even better, when confronted with the facts, his office just said they weren't interested in the truth anyway...that's the journalism of today.
Originally Posted by JBrunner
I personally don't think there is a comparison between darkroom manipulation and digital manipulation...two different animals. But, in reference to the original post in terms of the darkroom being irrelevant...well, I think the author was only using that point because he's in the digital world where the darkroom is no longer used. I think it slightly amusing that he seems frustrated with the so-called lack of veracity in the images being published (due to their manipulation). However, maybe these images are the perfect match since the facts/news are generally manipulated as well.