Taking photographs can be fun. With digital photography you can take as many photos as you like without being concerned about the cost of film and developing. At the same time we want our pictures to look good. Often, when we later look at the photograph, we see something that we did not notice when we were taking the picture, something that detracts from the shot. This week’s article looks at famous photographs that might have been altered and why. This week there is a link to the article and a link to the slideshow. Go to the links below and read the article and view the slideshow. Write a reflective comment that shows you have read the article, expresses your views, and addresses my questions.
What responsibilities do you think the photographer has when his/her photos are published? What responsibilities do you think the newspaper, magazine, website, etc. have when publishing photos? Under what conditions should it be acceptable to alter photographs? Which of the photos in the slideshow did you find most interesting? Why?
Fake Photographs Slideshow
Fake Photographs Article
26 comments:
I think that if a photograph is edited to make something look grander, I don't have a problem with it. But if something is edited to make a political point, like the Iranian missiles, Israeli attacks, or the Spanish Civil War pictures, then I think that is wrong because you are basically lying to people. It's like if I said, "I didn't break the TV, my sister did" then I showed an edited picture of her breaking the TV then its a lie. But if someone just makes a picture more majestic, as long as it's not enough to be considered tricking someone, then I think it's fine.
Also, if a picture has something to offend someone, editing it is fine too. And with the picture of the student who got shot, removing the post from on top of her head is fine, because if they didn't then people might find the picture funny or not serious.
I think a photographer has very little responsibility when he/she has their photos published, mainly because in the modern world you have free access to anywhere you want and that the photos are only published by your request and under your terms. On the other hand newspapers, magazines, websites, etc. have a lot more responsibilities such as giving credit to the photographer and altering the photo. I don't think it is ever acceptable to alter photographs unless you have the permission of the original photographer or unless it is acceptable by law. I found photo 10 to be quite interesting, the only thing that was edited out the fence, which I don't understand why they would do as to it was not affecting the picture.
I think there are a little responsibilities he should follow before posting the picture because since its fake people can face serious problems through all this, and I also think whoever is going to paste this on their newspaper, or magazine..etc. has a big responsibility he's going to face since the picture is fake, and the editor doesn't know about it. And, the pictures should be acceptable ONLY if it's a real picture, not edited, or fake. And, I think the most interesting picture from all the fake photographs that were posted was the fifth one, I didn't get why that small piece of detail was important to print off on the picture, it looks better, but not as much.
I think that the photographers responsibilities are to make pictures that are appropriate to the audience and also the magazines have to make sure that the photos that they publish are good and are appropriate and are not fakes
this ontop is jans blog!
I guess a photographer has little responsibility because you publish in the internet so you don't have to do all the work and everyone has access to the website or the government can do it for you or your friend can publish it for you and make mistakes and not make it private. I think the responsibility for the newspaper, magazine, and website is heavy because they need to protect it from getting stolen and used since it is in the Internet. It is dangerous. It will be okay to alter pictures when the publisher or the photographer said it is okay to alter their pictures. And I found the 2nd picture interesting because their clothes and backgrounds are the same, they only changed the face of the picture, which can be really insulting to the actual publisher.
When photographers publish their work, photographers should take some risks. They might get great compliments from other viewers, or might get criticized. That's why when they publish their work, they should be considerable, especially when their works contains parts that has base from other works that already has been published before. When Newspaper, magazine, web site, etc publish photos, They probably will face huge responsibilities too, because the company will have to let the author of the original work know, and give credit to that author. And we will be able to alter pictures only when if we let the author of the original work to know and give credit to that person. I found picture # 5 appealing to me very much, because it was very well done to delete a person in that picture without making it look awkward.
I think that its ok if the person who took the photo edited it but if someone else did it for some other perpose that it would be really wrong. First of all, the person who took that photo obviously didn;t take it for no reason and he or she would have though a little about it before they actually took it so i don't see why some random person would have the right to change that. Also people editing other peoples photos for political reasons is very iresponsible. i mean if you want a photo done a certain way go take it yourself man
I think that fake photographies should be allowed if they are used only as a kind of satire or a joke. For example, if you take someone else's body and put someone else's head on it just for fun or as a political joke it is ok. But, to use a fake photography in case of serious events, like wars or natural disasters, earthquakes or flooding would be, in my point of view, absolutelly unacceptable and unethical. Those events are too serious and too tragic, as they involve human pain and suffering, to be missused as a kind of manipulation. I think that the photographers who use those serious events to manipulate with their viewers should be somehow punished and prevented from further publishing! Of course, they should be punished only if it is proven, without any doubt, that they used a fake photography.
I think some responsibilities for the photographer are to make sure his picture is really good and will not ever need to be fixed or added on to or anything like that. I think that the publishers responsibilities are making sure that if they do edit a photo, they need to state that they did so no one thinks it’s real and they have to go through all that trouble of figuring it out. It should be acceptable when the photo is not in use for like trial or something like that. I find nothing wrong with altering photos as long as the person who altered them state that they did it in the first place. Photo number five interested me the most because I am a very big fan of photography so it interests me how they can take a guy totally out of a picture and it still looks right. Like I mean the river behind the guy must have been drawn in or something and I find that very cool.
Mayaizzleness
A published photographer has the responsibility of being honest about his or her work. One of the functions of a photograph is to provide evidence, or to show others an image of something real. Therefore, doctoring a photo is wrong if the photographer claims that it is unmodified. The same applies to newspapers, magazines, and websites. I believe that it is only acceptable to alter photographs when it is for the purpose of humor or to remove potentially offensive content. The photograph that I found most interesting was the one of Benito Mussolini on a horse. The horse handler was removed from this propagandist picture. I think it’s funny that a supreme dictator needed someone to keep him from falling off a horse.
I think that the responsibilities that the photomaker has to have is to fix it right and be honest with the picture. I think that the newspaper, magazine, etc... has to say that they edited the photo and put the original photo (if it's possible). I think it wou ld be acceptible if they are tring to show their point of view about something without making it offensive for others, or if they want to take a photo of someone and a random dude was in the background then they can erase him and it would be acceptible. :)
I think the responsibilities a photograoher has is to show the reality so that people can trust in the photo, if that is not the case you do not have to make a foto.
For mw the falling soldier is the best foto, because it is supposed to catch death as soon as it happens, and that that is almost immposible to happen, and that is why the foto is interesting, because it should show a rare moment in life/death.
A responsibility the photographer has when his\her photos are published is to inform the publisher if the photo is manipulated. Responsibilites the publisher has when publishing photos are to make sure the photographer is reliable and to mention on the newspaper, website, magazine, etc. if the photo is altered. It should be acceptable to alter photos only if you make it clear to everyone that the photo is altered and have the original available for people to see. I find the image of Ulysses S. Grant the most interesting one because it was constructed from many pieces of photos. It shows that “photoshopping” is actually a very old art.
The photographer has to write the name of the people and places in the picture he or she wants to publish, and if for example the editor in a newspaper wants to alter a photo, he/she has to tell the readers that the photo is not exactly the same as the real photo. I think it’s okay to change the size and quality of pictures, but not to remove people or things to make a picture look better, because then it’s no longer real. I think John Paul Filo's original photo of the Kent State shooting is the most interesting picture because it shows the woman’s reaction in the moment she sees the dead man. Anyway, I think it was completely unnecessary to remove the post from above her head. It didn’t make the picture any better. Idunn
My opinion on "Fake Photographs" is that a photographer has no right to change up a photograph, unless you state that you are editing this picture. I think it is a photographers responsibility to state wether a picture is "fiction" or "non fiction" just like writers do with there stories. A big issue now is that tabloids and magazines are publishing pictures advertising or stating something that is not true and offending people and advertising something that is harmful. It is any media sources responsibility to like a photographer when putting a picture up stating wether it has been photoshopped or not. If I were to go and take a picture of Angelina Jolie smoking it would advertise to Angelina Jolie fans that smoking is not a bad thing. I think another big issue about this is endorsing political sectors(sides in wars, political races, or political campaigning.) A photo that caught my eye was the picture of Stalin because this is an example of how photo altering is not a good thing because he is taking out an enemy and not showing the world what it is really like. I think under no circumstance is it okay to alter a photo.
I think the responsibilities of the photographer is to make the picture look good, believable and get good publicity when their photographs are published. I also think that the responsibilities of the newspapers, magazines, websited etc. is to make photos that are published to seem real and have them relate exactly to what they are trying say to the public. This makes the viewers see no flaws making the photos look more amusing and interesting. It would be acceptable to alter photographs when it has been adimitted or they had the permission to do so. We could believe any photographs that were published into newspapers, magazines, websites etc. so its a good thing to be honest about them. The photograph that interested me was the one where Benito Mussolni looked more heroic when the horse handler was removed from the photograph. It interested me because it showed me how badly people wanted to look like, and how much they wanted the pubilc to portray them.
-Rachel
p.s. sorry about the name
When photographers publish their own work on the, World Wide Web. They have to take the responsibility for their own actions, if they made the forged picture they are the only ones to blame at this time, these actions are beyond doubt deplorable, because it’s certainly not fair for the publisher who got the photo, the original photo, or even took the photo himself, and made the actual effort to show the world what he has that embodies history back then, or wars, or even a symbol of how life was back then. Rather than just a random person which knows how to use Photoshop very well, and take all the credit away from the original photo, just taking a picture of someone on a white background, after that just using Photoshop and laying any background that fits well, with the idea the picture it’s trying to signify to the person looking at it that is meant to be a sham, but barely anyone notices it.
I think the responsibility that photographers have when his photo is published is that he should make the photograph look as real as it can be and make it believable, because if the newspaper/article finds out it is a fake picture he can be faced with people sewing them and he also looses his reputation with the people. The responsibility that the newspaper, magazine, website, etc. when publishing this photo is to revise it and make it real so that the people will believe that the photo is real. It would be acceptable to alter photographs when they got permission from the newspaper or it has been revised and looked over. This most interesting photograph from the slideshow was the second one because they have changed a lot from the original picture to the fake like the hair, the beard, and the eyes, it looks like a completely new person.
I think the most important responsibility for the photographer to take into consideration is to give a truthful picture. Unless the point is to edit it for whatever reason, i think a good photographer will think his own work is good enough, anyone can manipulate a photograph. The Newspapers or magazines should also make sure they're giving the truth, or if someone were to find out, they would be in trouble forgiving false information. There are some exceptions to altering photos, for instance, if there was an assignment for whatever reason, or maybe if it was for a magazine that that makes jokes about things, like MAD, or even to show imaginary images. I looked at the slideshow and actually thought the last one was interesting, not because the image itself was interesting, but just the way they only took the truck out and added one last missle. I didn't understand why the truck was such a distraction that it had to be cropped out.
I think that a photographer has very little responsibility because when he/she publishes or uploads pictures onto the web, he/ she basically cannot be responsible for what happens to them because the photographer never intended the picture to be changed but to be looked at and respected. I put full blame on the websites, newspapers, magazines, etc. because they have to give credit to the photographer. When they do this, they cannot in any way change the photo or add to it. The photographer cannot take responsibilities for other people’s careless and irresponsible actions. The only reason the photographer can change his/she if the picture is offensive.
I think that the photographer’s responsibility when he publishes his photo is when they say it’s there photo they actually took it and not just altered a photo. Same go’s with magazines and newspapers print the photo the photographer actually took and not an altered photo. If there is an altered photo printed in the newspaper I think they should ask the author if the alter is ok with him if it’s not then they should not publish it. The photo that I found was the most interesting was the one with the guy on the horse. I think it’s really awesome how the person altered this photo the used three different pictures one with a guy standing, a background and a man on a horse. I know you could tell that the background was a fake but the guy on the horse was a little tricky.
I think that making fake photographs is lame but if you are not going to publish them and you are going to keep them for fun like if you put your own face in a legendary painting its ok. But the idea of taking a picture then making it look like something else them publishing it is not ok and it is very annoying because you believe it and then someone comes by and says its fake.
Wow. This article was interesting. I always knew that you could edit photos to fix the lighting, or crop out parts of it that you dont want, or even to fix other things like colors. I didn't know however that parts of the picture could simply just be erased, or that different pictures could be mixed together to make one. The fact that I don't know how to do this, living in the 21st century, and these people did it way back in the early 1900's is extremely impressive. When a photographer publishes his/her photos, they should inform people whether it has been edited or not. When publishing photos, the newspaper, magazine, website, etc. should give credit to the photographer for the photo. Photos can pretty much be altered under any conditions, however, they shouldn't be too offensive or stating facts that aren't true. I thought that the most interesting photo in the slideshow was the 3rd picture, which was formed by combining 3 different pictures, which must have been very complicated to do, but it looks realistic. :)
-Leila
Post a Comment