I'm taking a communications course this semester at my University and find it quite interesting. I'm doing a paper soon and I'm trying to formulate some ideas. I plan to write about photography (hobby and all, lol). This is what I'm trying to argue and if you guys could help me out a bit, that'd be great.
My argument is that photography use to be a well trusted medium for news and portraying reality very well, but the medium is now questioned for its authenticity with the dawn of digital (not just cameras but computer technology) and manipulation.
Since digital, we have been able to manipulate images (yes and even before in the darkroom but leave that out for now). Besides authenticity, what else has been affected by digital (in terms of photography as a medium of communication). Ethical reasons is another argument I've thought of but sort of falls with authenticity.
I think I have my counter arguments set up pretty well since I use digital . We've seen production times decrease in the news room, the cost factor since we have reusable film etc etc. I'm just having a hard time getting my arguments down.
Thanks! I hope this is an alright post for this forum. It's a neat topic to discuss too I think. (Why I chose it ).
Digital photography allows us to take more pictures more often and in doing this can yield better more experienced photographers. We get more practice and can experiment with just about anything in a moments notice and see results almost immediately.
Immediate gratification comes to high end photography!
I have shot more frames in a month with digital than I did in a year with film. In doing this I have been able to learn more and experience more in much shorter periods of time. I have also been able to respond to ideas I have much faster allowing the creative flow to go unhindered. With film and chemicals I always felt bogged down in the process of moving from the joy of shooting to the final result. In this way the learning process is as it should be and we no longer have to hiccup on the muss and fuss of the slow messy chemical process.
Not sure how this applies to your communication topic, but maybe it will spark something in that direction.
IMHO, if photography has become less reputable, I don't think it is a direct result of digital photography... I think it is a result of the general public become more acquanted with the the ways that photography can be misleading.
20 years ago, as a young photojournalism student, we had a series of projects where we specifically created images that were misleading. Using the technology of the day, we were limited to camera angles and cropping... some darkroom work, but nothing too outrageous... The general public didn't really understand how minor changes in cropping and camera angle can dramatically impact the "meaning" of the image.
Today, the general public is far better educated.. both because of direct access to programs such as photoshop and because of frauds involving edited photographs.
In some ways, this is analogous to the way people today view movies, television or newspapers. People tend to be more cynical and critical about what the see and hear... Unfortunately, there is still a sizable percentage of our society that still believes what they see without applying critical thinking.
I believe the main reason why people question what the see and read in the press and news today be it the written word or a photographer more these day then in the past is the fact that we are getting information from so many more sources these days then in the past.
Some times the story that's not written or the pictures that's not taken on purpose is even more telling then the ones that are taken or written.
I often wonder how often photoraphers and reporters are sent out to confirm an idea or story and told only to look for a shot things that will back the publications postion on thatt issue or story rather then just going out and looking for both side of the story.
I think thing the line between the news and editorials is getting very very thin.
My experience has been just that of Tom's, I've been shooting more since I went digital than the 15 years of film SLR ownership before. To the point that I'm probably near wearing out my trusty little Nikon. And all that film equipment is now just gathering dust.
I've learned more & becomre a far better photographer on that camera (and hanging around here...) than those years of film. The instant feedback helps the lessons sink in since setting up the camera and shot occurs only moments before seeing the result.
. We've seen production times decrease in the news room, the cost factor since we have reusable film etc etc. I'm just having a hard time getting my arguments down.