Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] RE: editing ethics & Eisenstadt

Subject: Re: [OM] RE: editing ethics & Eisenstadt
From: "Glen Lowry" <lowry@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:16:22 -0800
To begin w/ I have to apologise for not reading all the posts either of
these threads, but after reading subject line "editing ethics" so many times
and wondering about whether or not Eisenstadt's photo was "real", it's hard
to bite my proverbial tongue any longer.

So here's a somewhat lengthy reality rant:

What I don't understand is how photographers of all people can become so
hung up on the idea of an unmediated reality.  Realism is after all a
tradition with a very short history and clear conventions.  I don't think I
have to remind folks that we have to learn to make our photos look real. We
are taught to be fussy about holding the camera level and perpendicular to
the subject, to choose telephoto lens and wide apertures for portraits, to
use tripods for scenics, fill flash against backlighting.  The great realist
Ansel Adams suggests, amongst other things, edge burning and selective
bleaching. If comes to spend any time in the darkroom, we learn to pre-flash
highlights, to use split filtration, to burn in clear skies and to dodge the
eyes.

What about the high-tech emulsions that are coming to be de riguer in nature
photography--velvia and 100VS--how are these colour tweaks any less
intrusive than simple photoshop manipulations?  In fact, how exactly are
they realistic?

Surely, the act of framing is itself the most obvious, powerful and obvious
manipulation techniques we choose.  Many have argued that the aspect of the
frame itself--24X36mm, 6X6/7/9, 5X7, 8X10--is an integral part of the way in
which we choose to create the effects or impressions of reality.  In fact,
some photogs have attempted to establish an intrinsic relationship between
the full frame (visible frame lines) and documentary realism--arguing that
in showing the limits of the medium or the photographer's primary decision
on what to include, we remind our viewers that much has been excluded, that
the photograph too is a material object, part of a historical continuum or
social space and not simply a window through to some external reality (known
and agreed upon in advance by which authorities or in whose name?)--I do
mean figurative window, as opposed to the actual 8X10 window panes that some
of us who have been enjoying John Lind's posts on the development of film
formats were used for early glass negatives.

Look at the difference between the photo Eisenstadt took and the official
navy photo of the same case
(http://www.pathfinder.com/photo/gallery/arts/eisie/vjday/960826.htm ).
Eisenstatdt's framing of the event w/ the well known (is it cliched?) view
of the square and the flatiron building (isn't that the name of the skinny
building) suggests a kind of staging.  In the interview, he says that he
didn't care who the person receiving the kiss would be (young/old)--he knew
that the sailor in uniform running up the square was enough for him to get
the picture he was looking for, i.e., the reality that would in fact be
marketable.  The entire debate leads me to question when it was that Life
got to be real life?

The interesting questions begged by the debate over the reality of the image
(a nice oxymoron) is how and why did this one, relatively trite, photo come
to be so important.  Who's version of reality is this piece of
hetero-normative, ageists, euro-centric, post-war American boosterism
representing? ;-)  Rather than questioning whether or not it was 'staged'
and in the process blaming Eisenstadt for somehow manipulating his poor
defenceless audience, it is more interesting to reflect on how its obvious
staging (freely admitted by the photog himself) comes to be equated with
historical fact and fall from view.

One last point: perhaps the most powerful example of image manipulation and
the ethics of editing have to do with the acquittal of the police who were
charged in the Rodney King beating.  We all saw the film and knew that the
event really took place.  In fact, no one questioned whether or not this
event was staged.  However, what the defence lawyers were able to do was to
use photographic framing to make the jury doubt the reality of the video.
By breaking the footage down into a series of individual frames, they were
able to raise a reasonable doubt as to the exact point at which the police
used "excessive force".  In a sense, the truth value of still frame
photography was used to undermine that of video; in dividing the sequence
into individual moments--i.e. making the frames visible they were able to
convince this one powerful audience that in reality this line had not be
crossed because it could not be seen. (To be consistent to the larger
ethical issues raised by this example: it is also important to remember the
fact of the protest or uprising that followed--the people of LA still seemed
to have a pretty good idea of what reality was/is.  The larger audience knew
what and who were being manipulated and made it quite clear even though
history demonstrates that they themselves could not escape having their own
images manipulated or filtered through racist media representations of the
events, or what has come to be commonly referred to as a "riot".)

This rather amazing example of American jurisprudence highlights the real
issues around the ethics of editing and image manipulation.  I'd suggest
that we have a little more faith in our audience to know that photography is
more than a representation of a moment but part of a series of events
controlled or not that are in themselves imbedded in history.

Rant over.  A long way from over digitised ADITL images? Perhaps.

Glen Lowry



< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz