When casually reading a magazine or newspaper I have rarely stopped to think whether the the photographs that I am looking are a truth or a fiction. Even though I have altered images in Photoshop myself and know how easy it can be done, I have naively assumed the photographs that accompany newspaper articles etc, are a depiction of the truth - an unaltered photograph of the scene accompanying the story.
After giving this some thought and seeing the examples of photo composites in this weeks seminar I feel I will look at photographs (especially documentary photos) with a touch more scepticism in the future.
 |
| (Untitled, Author Unknown) |
"For more than a century, this photo purportedly depicted General Ulysses Grant astride his horse, gallantly poised before his troops at City Point, VA. Researchers at the library of congress determined, however, that Grants head was placed on the body of Union Maj. Gen Alexander M Cook, and that the composite was set in front of confederate prisoners captured at the battle of Fishers Hill, VA" (Wrong!, Givens, Ron. American History)
The fact that a publication will print a photo and sell it as a truth when it is not, I feel is wrong. Publishers, especially those who are of a documentary nature, should perhaps be more forthcoming and say when an image is altered? Should there, perhaps be systems in place that prevent distorted truth, to stop people from being misled in such a way? And even if it is understandable why people would want to create composites or altered photographs for purposes of propaganda etc, the moral question they may want to ask is whether or not they should?
Sources.
Givens, R. (2010). Wrong!. American History. 45 (2)
No comments:
Post a Comment