Visual culture and its relationship with photographic image have developed alongside technology, production and culture. Over the last decade digital technology has changed the way in which we percieve the photographic image and transform its ability to report and produce the knowledge of representation. Digital images differ from analog photographic images in ways that affect how they look, the ways in which they are generated, stored and disturted, and the types of technical devices (digital cameras, mobile phones, computers, ipods, websites, etc.) on which they can be created and displayed.Yet there are many similar ways in which digital images are used as analog photographic images were; as forms of personal expression, for family albums, and as documentary evidence. Although, analog cameras produce images that must be processed and developed, digital cameras allow the photographer to see the image on the camera immediately after the take, allowing even more instantaneous pleasure. The most widely discussed difference between conventional and digital photography concerns what happens after the take and before the print is produced.
Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Digital technology has transformed photography, allowing anyone with a digital camera, a computer, and a cable to download images not only to print them out as they are but also to copy them into programs in which they can be edited, enhanced, corrected and manipulated to alter composition, colour, framing and combinations of elements and scenes. In digital programs such as Adobe Photoshop, it is easy to be creative as its digitally techniques have made it possible to build on this ability to artifically construct realism. Until the 1990’s tools for the manipulation of the analog photograph remained restricted to the commercial and fine art photographer. Commercial photographers often used airbrushing and other professional techniques to ”tidy up,’ modify and combined their photographs. Today, these techniques are now common practice, to have personal photographs digitally reconfigured, to remove relatives out of birthday pictures, for instance or to erase ex- best friends or boyfriends from treasued images. In many cases, this kind of playing with the historical record is realively harmless. By the end of the 20th century, digital imaging and processing and computer- based techniques had made it possible to manipulate images in many ways, creating revolutionary changes in photography.
What changed with digital photographs is not the ability to manipulate the image but the wide availabily and accsessibility of these techniques to the consumer, making not just image production but also image reproduction and alteration an everyday aspect of consumer experience. The way in which images are displayed has also changed. Before collecting your prints at a parmacy may have included a duplicate set to give to a family member that could be cherished along with the original in the family album. Now the album exisits in the form of muliple duplicate disks that can be sent to family member worldwide via e-mail, all of them of equal quality. They can also be accessed through websites set up privately thus the family photo album has moved online making it much more accessible to the public than ever before.
What the purpose of a photograph use to be – convey realsim, proof and evidence.
Throughout its history, photography has been asscoiated with realism and truth. (talk a little bit about evidence and proof). As critic Marita Sturken notes, ‘ a photograph is often percieved to be an unmediated copy of the real world, a trace of reality skimmed off the very surface of life, and evidence of the real,’ (Practices of looking – an introduction to visual culture) however this no longer seems to be the case. As Geoffrey Bathen argues that although all forms of photography involve intervention and some manipulation, ” digitalization abandons even the rhetoric of truth that has been such an important part of photography’s cultural success.” However, Bathen also argues that digitalization loses credibility because it strips an image of its indexicality. There can be no guarantee that the digital image existed in a real time and space. ()
Peirce’s concept of the indexical quality of signs suggests a way to understand the changes taking place with digital technology. As already noted, the power of the anolg photograph is derived largely from its indexical qualities. The camera has coexisted in physical space with the real that it has photographed. Many digital images and all simulations lack this indexical relationship to what they represent. For example, an image generated exclusively by computer graphics software can be made to appear to be a photograph of actual objects, places or people, when in fact it is a simulation, that is that it does not represent something in the real world. The difference resides in the fact that the process of producing a digital image does not require that the subject (the object, person or space) is present or that the subject even exisits. Digital simulations of photographs imitate photographs of real occurence. For instance, an image in which people are digitally inserted into a landscape where they have never been does not refer to something that has been. While the acknowledged manipulation of photographs has always been a cause of concern for some, theses worries appear to have increased dramatically with the advent of digital techniques.
This Technology has undermined the nature and meaning of images as representation. Images and photography is now more than ever open to non-detectable transformation and manipulation. What was once trusted as reality can now be altered and edited. The activity of photography together with digital technology is transforming our contemporary visual culture.
This raises the question of what happens to the idea of photographic truth when an image looks like a photograph but has in fact been created on a computer with no camera at all. In Peirce’s terms, this marks a fundemental shift in meaning from the photograph to the digital image, as we take these computer generated images to resemble real life subjects.
While the knowledged manipulation of photographs has always been a cause of concerm for some, these worries appear to have increased dramatically with the advent of digital techniques. Frequently, these worries centre on issues of truth and reality. For example ‘ a century and a half ago photographs relieved paintings of the burden of recording reality; now in turn, computers have weakened photography’s claim on depicting the ‘real world. For all of computers’ extraordinary precision, their impact in news photography has been to obscure the boundaries of fact and fiction, in other words, to blur.’ (Leslie 1995;113)
Questions of the verifiability and manipulation of images takes on a particular importance in the context of photojournalism and documentary photography. There are very high stakes in the news industry in certain ethical codes of truth telling. These include, the idea that photographic news images are realistic and unmanipulated. In other words, as viewers we assume that the photographs that are presented in the mainstream newspapers and news journals are unaltered.
When a photograph is introduced as documentary evidence, it is often presented as if it were incontrovertible proof that an event took place in a particular way and in a particular place. As such, it is percieved to speak the truth in a direct way. (talk about the credibility decreasing at least 50 words)
Discovery that a news orginzation has altered an image can spark scandal and debate, such as the debate over Time magazine’s cover of O.J Simpson when he was arrested and charged with murder. Time magazine heightened the contrast and darkened the skin tone of the O.J mug shot to create a more sinster look. Time followed the historical convention of using darker skin tones to connote evil and to imply guilt. However Time magazines argued that the cover was not manipulated, but rather ‘illustrated.’ () It is here where images that have been altetered or reranged to generate a certain meaning and to ultimately persuade a particular point of view and an emotional response, where the lines between fact and fiction become blurred. (talk abit how views how images like this anger the public as it tricks them because most manipulations remain indected and how because of this these images are eroding the publics trust and the media credibility) talk a little bit about/ how because of technology we as views can detect obvious forms of manipulation however The trust in the image as a representation of reality has been degraded part because of the overload of images in the world around us but also with a greater and more widespread knowledge about the image as something produced in contrast to a reflection. However, despite this most critics agree that photography is accepted by the public as believeable, ‘ People believe photographs,’ Coleman wrote in 1976 (Coleman, ‘ The directorial mode: Notes Toward a definition,’ in Light Readings, p248. and Andy Grundberg reiterated the point that photography ‘is the most stylistically transparent of the visual arts, able to represent things in convincing persepective and seamless detail. Never, mind that advertising has taught us that photographic images can be marvelous tricksters: what we see in a photograph is often mistaken for the real thing.’ (Andy Grunberg, ‘blaming a medium for its message, ‘ New York Times, Arts and Leisure section, August 6, 1989, P1. No matter how much manipulation went into the taking or development of a picture, the viewer feels assured that the photograph documents truth. In how to do things with pictures, William Mitchell, says that ‘ the fact that what is represented on paper undeeniably existed, if only for a moment, is the ultimate source of the mediums’s extraordinary powers of persuasion’.
Does this mean phptpgraphic truth is at an end? One notion/ arguement is to suggest that photography as we know it (active witness) has changed as a result to digitalization, so much so that truth within photography is becoming non-exsitent. Critic Nicholas Mirzoeff, goes as far as to say ‘ Photography met its own death some time in the 1980s at the hands of computer imaging.’ Although, another arguement is to suggest it never exsited to begin with. Many people think the manipulation of images started with the invention of Photoshop, however photography has always been altered, long before the digital age, in the sense that the creation of an image through a camera lens has always involved some degree of subjective choice through selection, framing (what to include and what to reject) and personalization. Some types of image recording seems to take place without human invention. In surveillance videos, for instance, no one stands behind the lens to determine what and how any particular event should be shot. Yet even in surveillance video, someone has programmed the camera to record a particular part of space and to frame that space in a particular way. (and what one persons reality is, another might not be)
Another is to suggest that digital technology has imerged photography into an art form, as digital images are being cropped and adjusted on a daily basis to create more aesthically pleasing images, streering away from the contentional appearance of optical reality, thus making it an expressive piece of fiction rather than historical evidence. As Susan Sontag states in her 1977 book, On Photography, ‘the photographer is not simply the person who records the past, but the one who invents it.’ Spanish Photographer and critic Joan Fontcuberta alsoo noted that because the computer has become ‘ a sophisticated technological prothesis we cannot do without.’
This also suggest that because digital technology has become so accessible and easy to use, editing images has become second nature, that is to say it is essental to correct images once that have been uploaded, in order to percieve the perfection that photographers and amauture photographers desire.
Altough it has been estabishlished that computers can compile data and create pictures that mimic the appearance of the world without capturing any visual information from optical reality, such as films and computer games. Most digitally modified pictures are processed in oder to make them look more real and thereby conveys a sense of truth.
we cant do without digital imaging- small touch ups like cropping and adjust light and colours could generate new meaning to the image, thus making it an expressive piece of fiction rather than historical evidence.
Conclusion
400 words
There are numerous examples of controversies over the manipulation of images to produce more aestheically pleasing ‘ documentary’ images. For instance (Opera Winfery)
By exploiting the use of digital manipulation tools, journalists are abusing their power as representors of truth. Altough manipulation is not rare to digital imaging, it could be argued that but the technology makes composing easier to do and harder to detect thus creating a blur
In the context of of digital imaging, with its increased capacity to change images in seamless and realistic ways, can the idea of photographs as unmanipulated evidence survive?
Bathen theorizes that the perceived manipulability of digital photography will upset photography’s association with objectivity. For the first time, the issue of a “fake,†a non-authentic, photograph is discussed.
Regardless of what viewers think about the nature of photography, most critics agree that photography is accepted by the public as believeable, ‘ People believe photographs,’ Coleman wrote in 1976 (Coleman, ‘ The directorial mode: Notes Toward a definition,’ in Light Readings, p248. and Andy Grundberg reiterated the point that photography ‘is the most stylistically transparent of the visual arts, able to represent things in convincing persepective and seamless detail. Never, mind that advertising has taught us that photographic images can be marvelous tricksters: what we see in a photograph is often mistaken for the real thing.’ (Andy Grunberg, ‘blaming a medium for its message, ‘ New York Times, Arts and Leisure section, August 6, 1989, P1. No matter how much manipulation went into the taking or development of the a picture, the viewer feels assured that the photograph documents truth. In how to do things with pictures, William Mitchell, says that ‘ the fact that what is represented on paper undeeniably existed, if only for a moment, is the ultimate source of the mediums’s extraordinary powers of persuasion’.
With most media related images being manipulated, to ultimately persuade the viewers to a particular point of view. The audience is generally unaware of the alterations, creating a blurring of the truth.
The debate has brought forward larger questions about the notions of objectivity that are attached to images published in journalistic contexts.
Manipulation techniques have continued to proliferate and are now the norm in digital photography, chipping away at the photographic conventions that previously were associated with truth in photojournalism.
The trust in the image as a representation of reality has been degraded part because of the overload of images in the world around us but also with a greater and more widespread knowledge about the image as something produced in contrast to a reflection
With easy to use tools that can immediately alter images to create a manipulated copy, causing truth to become a manufactured entity.
With most media related images being manipulated, to ultimately persuade the viewers to a particular point of view. The audience is generally unaware of the alterations, creating a blurring of the truth.
No matter how much manipulation went into the taking or development of the a picture, the viewer feels assured that the photograph documents truth. In how to do things with pictures, William Mitchell, says that ‘ the fact that what is represented on paper undeeniably existed, if only for a moment, is the ultimate source of the mediums’s extraordinary powers of persuasion’.
one assumption is to consider that reality in the photo imagery is becoming non-exisitent, with most media related images being manipulated, to ultimately persuade the viewers to a particular point of view. The audience is generally unaware of the alterations, creating a blurring of the truth.
the arguement made by critic Nicholas Mirzoeff that is that ‘ Photography met its own death some time in the 1980s at the hands of computer imaging.’
Death of photography and what it once stood for.
This raises the question of what happens to the idea of photographic truth when an image looks like a photograph but has in fact been created on a computer with no camera at all.
Many people think the manipulation of images started with the invention of Photoshop, however photography has always been altered, long before the digital age, in the sense that the creation of an image through a camera lens has always involved some degree of subjective choice through selection, framing and personalization. Some types of image recording seems to take place without human invention. In surveillance videos, for instance, no one stands behind the lens to determine what and how any particular event should be shot. Yet even in surveillance video, someone has programmed the camera to record a particular part of space and to frame that space in a particular way.
How digital technology has become apart of our everyday lives- how we can not do without it
As Spanish photographer and critic Joan Fontcuberta noted the computer has become ‘ a sophisticated technological prosthesis we can not do without.’
How images today have become more asthetically pleasing rather than historical evidence or proof
With photographers interpreting what it is they see in a myriad of ways, by making simple asthetic choices such as a camera lens always involves some degree of subjective choice through selection, framing and personalisation.
by making simple asthetic choices such as …….. focal, lens – objectivity…… even with survillance cameras every image is manipulated to some extent.
Manipultaion is not rare to digital imaging, but the technology makes composing easier to do and harder to detect.
Since the dramatic growth of communications since the 1990’s, technologies such as satellites, the internet and virtual reality seen photographs and images seamlessly modified to produce new and morally questionable representations.
Widespread use of digital imaging techologies since the 1990’s has dramatically altered the status of the photograph relative to truth claims,
While the knowledged manipulation of photographs has always been a cause of concerm for some, these worries appear to have increased dramatically with the advent of digital techniques. Frequently, these worries centre on issues of truth and reality. For example ‘ a century and a half ago photographs relieved paintings of the burden of recording reality; now in turn, computers have weakened photography’s claim on depicting the ‘real world. For all of computers’ extraordinary precision, their impact in news photography has been to obscure the boundaries of fact and fiction, in other words, to blur.’ (Leslie 1995;113)
Find Out How UKEssays.com Can Help You!
Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.
View our academic writing services
(insert footnote)
So does this mean photographic truth is at an end? or did it ever exisit?
(main body of text- argue)
With the increase of digital technology used to retouch and ‘clean up’ images on a daily basis it could be considered that photographs no longer represent a window of reality or documentary evidence but are instead decorative piece of fantasy and fiction.
Conclusion
What changed with the digital photograph is not the ability to manipulate the image but the wide availability and accessibility of these techniques to the consumer, making not just image production but also image reproduction and alteration an everyday aspect of consumer experience.
The capacity for manipulation and multiple contextualization is not new, of course, with the digital photograph. It has always been possible to ‘fake’ realism in photographs.
Photographic prints and negatives have been physically altered since the beginning of photography. At time this has been for aesthetic effect, or for political or social reasons. While some early photographic manipulation had the aim of enhancing the seeming truthlikeness of the image, other examples appear purely decorative. For years, photographers have retouched both negatives and prints in darkrooms, removing speckles and dust or hiding blemishes on the faces of subjects.
Points and arguements
The possiblilties of digital imaging are endless, for example, the unique and cherished old photograph of our great grandfather at age five, fading and crumbling in the family album, becomes a bit less difficult to lose when it hasw been preserved in a copy that will not erode over time and will not decrease the quality with copying as a photographic original would.
While the acknowledged manipulation of photographs has been a cause of concern for some, these worries appear to have increased dramatically with the advent of digital techniques. Frequently, these worries centre on issues of truth and ‘reality.’ For instance “a century and a half ago photographs relieved paintings of the burden of recording reality; now, in turn, computers have weakened photographs’ claim on depicting the ‘real’ world. For all of computers’ extraordinary precision , their impact in news photography has been to obscure the boundaries of fact and fiction. In other words, to blur.” (Leslie:1995;113)
Most critics agree that photography is accepted by the public as believeable. ‘ People believe photographs,’ Coleman wrote in 1976 (Coleman, ‘ The directorial mode: Notes Toward a definition,’ in Light Readings, p248. and Andy Grundberg reiterated the piont that photography ‘is the most stylistically transparent of the visual arts, able to represent things in convincing persepective and seamless detail. Never, mind that advertising has taught us that photographic images can be marvelous tricksters: what we see in a photograph is often mistaken for the real thing.’ (Andy Grunberg, ‘blaming a medium for its message, ‘ New York Times, Arts and Leisure section, August 6, 1989, P1.
People have inhertited a cultural tendency to see through the photograph to what is photographed and to forget that the photograph is an artifact, made by a human.
Photographers are well aware of the aura of credibility the photograph has that other media representations do not share. Jacob Riss and Lewis Hine, for example, wrote and made photographs in the cause of social refoem and knowingly used the medium of photography to give their writing more credibility. Hine stated, ‘ the average person believes implicitly that the photograph cannot falsify,’ but he was quick to add, ‘ you and I know that while photographs may not lie, liars may photograph.’ (Lewis Hine, ‘ Social photography , How the Camera May in the Social Uplift,’ in Classic Essays, P 111. ——— FIT THIS IN SOMEWHERE — USE THIS!!!
Critic Nicholas Mirzoeff declared that ‘ photography met its own death some time in the 1980 at the hands of computer imaging.’ ()8
Likewise, Williams J. Mitchell too backed Mirzeff claim by announcing that ” from this moment on, photography is dead or more precisely, radically and permanently redefined as was painting one hundred and fifty years before.” ()9
Spanish photographer and critic Joan Fonctcuberta also noted that, because the computer has become ‘ a sophisticated technological prosthesis we cannot do without.”
Moreover, all photography has been altered in the sense that the camera frames and focuses on a chosen subject, thus eliminating other topics. (talk about objectivity here and how every image is altered beacuse of this – even surviallance)
Photographs are treated as active witnesses
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:
