Real or Fake

Photo Manipulation 

The first photo you see above is obviously fake but what about the one under it. The top one was made in photoshop the bottom photo was made in camera with a long shutter speed no editing required. These are examples of photo manipulation, a way for photographers to create art with their skills of technology. This topic on if photographers should or shouldn't manipulate images has been talked about for years. Rules that are possible on how much a photographer should "fake" an image have been discussed but none have been set in place. 

As a photographer, the one that took both images above I believe that there shouldn't be rules on what a photographer can create. Are there rules on artist on what they can draw, paint or sculpt? No, society needs to realize that not everything you see is reality, this is true in everything not just photography. Why should photographers have a limitation and not film makers. Most of the TV, movies, and advertising people see are fake and edited. Some photographers use photoshop to create an image that is from their imagination, an example being land floating above a canyon(Image1). Others use skills in a camera to manipulate light, where no photoshop was used(Image2).  Photography its self is manipulation not just the crazy edits you see online. A photographer uses different setting in a camera to manipulate the light to their personal liking. Making it where no manipulation could happen would completly wipe out photography in general. A question that has been asked around is "how strict can the rules be." Are photographers just banned from creating art in photoshop or are they banned from creating art in camera? Each rule gets rid artistic freedom. Not knowing how strict the rules should be is just another reason why they shouldn't be in place.

Matt Brandon asks "Were photographers ever meant to capture only reality?"(Brandon2012). I think this is a great question because a camera was created to capture a moment but as anything it starts to evolve. Matt Brandon used and example of a carpenter. "carpenters are meant only to build houses. Of course, this is silly. Carpenters can do anything with their trade and craft from building a house to a beautiful wooden statue or a gorgeous boat to sail the ocean. Traditionally, carpenters are meant to build things out of wood. The only limitation is that it needs to be wood. To relegate carpenters to do one thing would be stifling"(Brandon2012). The only limitation a photographer has is that their art has to use a camera.So why shouldn't they be able to create a image of land floating just as a carpenter is able to bulid a statue. They both use their mediums.The photographer uses the same camera that captures real moments as the carpenter uses the same wood that builds a house. Art is created to show the view of the world and the situations in it so why should someone be limited on how they do just that. No matter the medium used there should be no limits put on art.  

http://thedigitaltrekker.com/2012/04/photography-whats-real-whats-not-and-does-it-matter
https://luminous-landscape.com/the-very-old-debate-of-image-manipulation/
Images: http://www.ashbyphotography.net/fullscreen-page/comp-iy4ujjzq/5220cd5e-6684-4530-b8df-02a99397bb65/1/%3Fi%3D1%26p%3Dlm54d%26s%3Dstyle-iyyr8skf (my own website for my images)
https://aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/18/is-photo-manipulation-bad-for-photography/

9/11 Controversial Photograph

Thomas Hoepker Controversial Photograph

Photographers, have to make some tough decisions in their career. Right before they click the button that freezes time for eternity, thousands of thoughts are running through their minds. Do they take the shot or lose an opportunity and how many people will be affected by this photo. A photographer thinks about every opinion a person could have about the photograph before it is even taken. On one of the most important days in history, one of the most iconic photos was taken of 9/11 by Thomas Hoepker.

In Thomas's Hopeker photograph above it shows New Yorkers relaxing in the sun as the cloud of smoke rises from the twin towers. Hopeker didn't publish this photo until 2006 because of it's possible opinions. He states " I felt, was ambiguous and confusing: Publishing it might distort the reality as we had felt it on that historic day"(Hopeker2006). I believe Hopeker was right about this, people were not ready for the possible metaphor of this photo. Its a disturbing idea that these people could just being sitting in the sun with what looks like no care about what is going on behind them. There were many thoughts about this photo one thought being by Frank Rich, from New York Times wrote "He saw in this undeniably troubling picture an allegory of America's failure to learn any deep lessons from that tragic day, to change or reform as a nation: "The young people in Mr Hoepker's photo aren't necessarily callous. They're just American.""(Jones2011). There was also another thought about how a photograph doesn't show what they say, the people could be talking about 9/11. When Rich says "they are just Americans," I think it is true. America is the place to be and a place some strive to get to because of its endless possibilities. I believe America has a stigma around it that makes it where nothing bad happens, America is the place of moving on. When something bad happens we rush to fix it creating a imaginary perfect world. This photo has sadly become one of the most iconic photos from 9/11 surpassing some of the more horrific photographs. I think this is because nobody wants to forget what happened that day but they want to remember it in a nicer way. People don't want to come to the realization of a situation, they just want to live and have it as a memory.  As Jones says in his article "life does not stop dead because a battle or an act of terror is happening nearby"(Jones2011).  Events become memories, the lives lost become memorials and the people that lived through the event become quite about it. The people in this photograph just represent the culture of Americans, we experience something then change the subject to something lighter.

Sited
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/911-photo-thomas-hoepker-meaning
https://wevelostcontrol.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/thomas-hoepker-9-11.jpg
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2006/09/i_took_that_911_photo.html