| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/23/2008 10:38:56 PM · #1 |
Hey guys,
I am a photography student at a small college in Tennessee. For my composition class we were to write an essay about a topic in our major and extend our audience past the walls of our classroom. It would be greatly appreciated if you would take a few minutes and read about my topic and post your thoughts and opinions about the subject. Thank you in advance for your time and here is to a good discussion!
These days more and more things are going to a digital format, and obviously photography it has a rather large digital market. In my research I found an interesting article by Barbara Savedoff. In her article she stated that,
"The enhanced manipulability of photographs that results from the applications of digital technology must ultimately change the way photographs are used - whether in journalism, law, or other areas. As it becomes more common to digitize photographs and use digital cameras, and as it becomes easier to alter these digital images to reflect whatever scenarios we might dream up, the documentary usefulness of photographs is severely diminished."
I also cited specific examples of instances where manipulated photographs have caused a ruckus - like the Allan Detrich case (digitally altered photograph of the Bluffton University baseball team was published on the front page of the newspaper he worked for) that happened in 2007 and the case of OJ Simpson covers that Newsweek and Time magazine published back in 1994 (the magazines used the same cover photograph but the Time cover had clearly been altered).
So what do you guys, a community of photographers, most of which work primarily in digital formats, think about the rise of digital effects in regard to photojournalism? Can digital photography be used as evidence or as a way of recording exactly what happened at a specific time or place and hold its credibility? The National Press Photographers Association has set guidelines that photojournalists who choose to join their Association must follow, but in the Detrich (a member of the NPPA) case if other photographers with the same photograph had not been at the event and had not also appeared on other front pages across the state of Ohio, he may have never been caught. It has been said that photographs don't lie, but is this digital format changing that concept? |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 10:55:04 PM · #2 |
It's most definitely changing things. Sometimes it is difficult to pick out a manipulated pic and if one were to be used as evidence, it would certainly be manipulated by someone with an expert level of skills, and would take an expert level of skill to determine the fakery.
I think the legal system will eventually settle upon something to qualify photos. Probably it will require expert testimony on the authenticity of an image. I think the greater problem however, is Joe Average, who is more easily tricked by a reasonably manipulated image. Even something that is eventually revealed as a fake can seriously influence public opinion. People will not remember (or sometimes even know that it was faked), but they will be influenced by the positive or negative impression it left on them. |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 10:58:07 PM · #3 |
Using the supposed documentary power of photography to fool people is NOT new & does not require digital technology, but only the willingness of people to believe in the documentary power of photography--[eta] & then you have the famous journalism photos that were staged, bringing up the argument whether it's worse to stage the shot in front of the camera or to fake it in the darkroom.
Faked Cottingley Fairy photos
Faked WWI Dogfitght photos
Message edited by author 2008-11-23 23:15:47. |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 11:09:28 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by ash_rae:
hed."
Can digital photography be used as evidence or as a way of recording exactly what happened at a specific time or place and hold its credibility? |
I don't know how it's holding up in court but Nikon offers a software solution with some of it's cameras that's supposed to assure the images taken are directly from the camera and not enhanced. I assume it uses a serial number from the sensor as well as some kind of CRC check to assure the image is un-enhanced. Supposedly an officer of the law can use these tools to preserve a chain of evidence. |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 11:14:27 PM · #5 |
Message edited by author 2008-11-23 23:15:25. |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 11:26:42 PM · #6 |
The only thing I'd like to put in on this matter is that, especially in a field like photojournalism, one should follow the old saying "Trust No One". I think that you just cannot trust the validity of digital photography. I'm not saying that I think all pictures are altered and that nobody can be trusted; I'm just saying that in a case where there is a "remarkable" photo involved, there needs to be major verification made before publishing.
Good luck, from one tired college student to the next ;) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/15/2025 06:32:02 AM EDT.
