Truth in Photography - historical look

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

05/23/2006 06:28:25 PM · #1

Not beating a dead horse here, just ran across something interesting...

Last night at camera club I had the pleasure of viewing Aubrey Bodine's work narrarated by his daughter Jennifer. His work is amazing - he started out as a messenger boy for the Baltimore Sun and became one of their top photographers. Going through the slide show, she explained his thoughts, ideas, and methods behind each image. He also did a lot of what was called salon work - fine art photography, and was a founding member of the PSA (for further info and pics see his website).

Anyway, what struck me was her information on his dark room work. He spent hours spotting images, dodging and burning, and even combining separate images into one. Many of his 'Baltimore skies' actually came from Maine.

So I dug a little deeper, got some books out of the library. Found out that for years (no really, more than 100), photographers have been editing and mixing photographs in the dark room. Its not just a photoshop thing and a recent occurance. A quick easy read is here: photomontage.

Anyway, my point in all this is that photography has never been limited to telling the truth. Like any other art, photography is about the artist's vision. How each photographer sees the world is part of their art. In my opinion, its a good thing we don't all see the same.

I've been struggling with this question for months - Why do we take the images we do? Why can two people stand in the same moment and space and capture completely different images? Which one is true? they both are - that is the beauty of art.

Cutter

Nikon D700

05/23/2006 06:43:24 PM · #2

awesome post. well said. This photo of Mr. Bodine's is sublime...

Bodine Photo

klstover

Panasonic DMC-FZ8

05/23/2006 06:45:54 PM · #3

Interesting links - thanks!

05/23/2006 07:38:35 PM · #4

one of my favorites She said that in Baltimore, in the 50's, Saturday morning was spent washing the marble steps in this neighborhood. He would go down there to photograph and often 'arranged' people to get the images he wanted.

another favorite in the Baltimore harbor. He had a great sense of light.

and another Really inspiring for the architecture challenge. They don't have his best up - the ones I saw last night blew me away - industrial workers, other architecture...

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

05/23/2006 09:29:51 PM · #5

Not sure about the rest, but I'm still old-school and feel that photographs used in newspaper should be genuine.

xianart

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

05/23/2006 09:43:06 PM · #6

i've always maintained that photographs lie. fromthe moment i picked one up serioulsy 20 years ago, i realised that they almost never tell the truth. even unedited pics lie, as they are out of context. i can't tell you the hours of spot-toning hell that pre-digital photographers spent.

since fox-talbot, we've always been striving for the image, and using any means necessary to create them.

even journalisitc images lie, as they photographer chooses what to shoot, how to frame it, how to expose it etc. context, or lack thereof, makes the meaning of the pic.

that said, i do agree with crayon, that news images shoudl be pretty straightforward, without a whole lot of pp, or shifting of elemnts, etc.

jerseyjim

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

05/23/2006 10:00:33 PM · #7

I agree 100% that any "News" photo should be untouched other then basic corrections to contrast, brightness, etc.. Nothing should ever be mover, removed or altered.

On the other hand - the "Art" of photography is just that - the artist's (Photographer's) vision. If a photographer posts or sells a picture and it has a sky from Maine and a beach from South Carolina and it is simply that- a picture of a beach - not sold as "A picture of Hilton Head Island" - anything he or she does is fine - I do think however that if you are titling a picture "Philadelphia" it should be ALL Philadelphia not a composite of different cities with a Liberty Bell in the middle.

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

05/23/2006 10:53:51 PM · #8

Originally posted by crayon:

Not sure about the rest, but I'm still old-school and feel that photographs used in newspaper should be genuine.

This thread was never about newspaper photos. This was about editing. Often, people state that photoshop is used in place of taking good images and that people didn't edit in the past. I'm just pointing out that they did. People often say that all digitally edited images are fake. And I am showing that many film images are just as 'fake.' I hear cries of 'getting back to REAL photography.' My point and position is that all photography is real.

And I still profess that news images are edited - dodged, burned, spotted, and it doesn't make them less real or less true. Whether they are in the the National Enquirer, The NY Times, or the National Geographic. Converting a color picture to black and white is changing the truth of an image and yet you all have no problem with that.

Anyway, this was not about photojournalism. It was about preconceived notions of photography and editing. That is all.

coolhar

05/23/2006 10:59:23 PM · #9

It makes it easier for all people's views to be accepted if you don't find it necessary to consider all photography to be art.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

05/23/2006 11:45:36 PM · #10

In the Civil War, it was not uncommon for photographers to re-arrange battlefield scenes to suit their needs by re-arranging bodies, weapons etc. and then publishing those pictures as factual representations.

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

05/23/2006 11:56:38 PM · #11

Originally posted by dahkota:

And I still profess that news images are edited - dodged, burned, spotted, and it doesn't make them less real or less true. Whether they are in the the National Enquirer, The NY Times, or the National Geographic. Converting a color picture to black and white is changing the truth of an image and yet you all have no problem with that.

There is a difference between an edited photo, and an altered photo.
For example, cut n pasting the president's head onto a monkey's body is considered a fake; while waiting for the right moment getting a monkey to pass-by the president and making it appear the president has a monkey for a body is another thing altogether (tho in reality the monkey was, just passing by and got his head hidden).

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

05/24/2006 12:00:00 AM · #12

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

while the factual representations may be fake, the photo is real, as it has successfully captured what was in front of the lens without being altered.
Some say NASA did it

Message edited by author 2006-05-24 00:14:48.