photographic truth is never literal, is often tangled up with artifice and always speaks to the emotions before addressing the intellect.
Keith at Good Reputation Sleeping pulled a quote from the New York Times Magazine section and it sent me running to read the article. Of course this blockquote from his pull quote is what I will pin to my door at work.
…the camera is less an extension of the eye than of the subconscious mind, with all of its riches and all of its snares. They showed that photographic truth is never literal, is often tangled up with artifice and always speaks to the emotions before addressing the intellect. – Luc Sante
With all my focus on the debates and elections, I neglected to mention that one of the photos I took this year, got an honorable mention in the Editor and Publisher Annual photo of the Year contest. The photo had appeared in this blog before. Here’s what it looks like:
Elizabeth Menegon, sister to U.S. Army Special Forces Reservist Major David Menegon, rushes toward her brother who has just arrived at the Old Greenwich train station in Greenwich CT yesterday March 31, 2004. He had been in Iraq for 14 months.
It was quite an honor. As far as I knew, up until this week, I was in the running for the $1,000 prize. If you go to the contest page and click on the honorable mention title, you can see the excellent work of other photographers as well…. enjoy.
Chasing Daisy has an interesting link about a photographic scavenger hunt with a link to a discussion on manipulating photos using PhotoShop. Since I make my living by taking photographs, I found it very interestng.
I’d like to note that like many professions, photography has different fields of expertise. I work in the newspaper industry so the rules for altering photos are pretty well known. Simply, you don’t place or remove anything that wasn’t there when the photo was taken. If the photos can’t be trusted, then neither can the words. But, if you look at photos taken for advertising, I’d guess that most of them have been heavily manipulated.
If you read the discussion, you will also see that someone has posted a link to the proper use of the product name Photoshop. One of the don’ts is that you should not use the word Photoshop as a verb (i.e. “he photoshopped the eyes”). Now this is just my opinion, but (always watch out for a “but”, it’s the transition for completely denying what was previously said;)) I don’t believe in giving corporations control over how we use our own language. If anything, it gives the product more exposure. It I were writing a book I’d add the trademark symbol. I’m not. I’m writing a blog. My writing reflects, in general, how I speak. I don’t say “the picure looks like it was manipulated by using Adobe’s trademarked product called Photoshop.” I say, “It looks photoshopped,” and everyone knows what I mean.
Anyway, I learned photography during the old days, when I developed my own film, knew the difference between cold light and condenser enlargers, and the difference between different films and papers. I have a historical background from which to draw my ethics. It will be interesting to see how those morés change as younger people, who do not have that background, take over the field.