via JProf
Changing a photograph in a way that alters its meaning -- even if only incidentally -- is not a good thing for journalists or journalism. We have been reading about this sort of thing far too much these days, and unfortunately, we will probably continue to hear about such behavior. But in an article in Slate ("Don't Believe What You See in the Papers"), Jim Lewis has some valuable perspective on how we view photography. A photograph has power because we believe it; we think that if we had been standing beside the photographer when it was taken, we would have seen the same thing. That's not true, and Lewis does a good job of reminding us of that fact. Lewis also links to a "rogue's gallery" of digital manipulation put together by Dartmouth's Haney Farid that reminds us that this sort of thing happens on a regular basis.
A picture is worth a thousand words; it's also proof and evidence to back any article that we read whether it's on the net or in the paper. But, with today's digital photography it's hard to tell what's real and what was photo-shopped or tampered with. So, when an unbelievable article is presented with us with tampered photography, it's hard not to believe in it. And it's a dangerous thing for us, as journalists, to mess with. I believe with this kind of technology at our fingers tips it's easy to sell anything to the public once we have photographic 'proof' to back us up.
ReplyDeleteSo, I agree with Jim Lewis when he remind us of the fact that, not everything we see is true.