the unseen gulf war

Peter Turnley's photographs are eerily calm and visually compelling. From his photos I get a strong sense of distance between the Iraqi people and the Americans. They are rarely photographed together. In the few photos that they are there is the most minimal of interaction and physical contact. Perhaps that's how it really is, but I don't feel that Turnley gave me a holistic view of the war from his images. I am still left feeling like there is more. This is why this excerpt struck me as a bit odd, "I feel that it is part of my role as a photojournalist to offer the viewer the opportunity to draw from as much information as possible, and develop his or her own judgment." Isn't Turnley limiting the amount of information I can draw just by the simple act of choosing to present certain images. Does Turnley constrain the parameters in which I am making my judgement by electing to show me this images? Also, Turnley admits that he flew from Paris to Rihayd after the conflict was over, which seems a bit like ambulance chasing. This very fact makes it difficult, at least in my mind, for Turnley to acheive his "role as a photojournalist" since he omits the causal aspects of his images.

Lomography

"A bad LO­MO­graph is a bad pic­ture too; a good LO­MO­graph is also a good pho­to­graph."
That was my favorite quote from Alfred's blog. I think the Lomography story is an incredible story, it really is a great marketing scheme. I can't believe that they successfully marketed a cheap ex-soviet camera for $150. That's crazy. It's crazy that people actually would want to pay that kind of money to have a camera of dubious quality. I found this quote from wikipedia that summarizes the Lomographic characteristics, "Characteristics such as over-saturated colors, off-kilter exposure, blurring, "happy accidents," and alternative film processing are often considered part of the "Lomographic Technique." Lomography is one of those things that you wish you had thought of first. I think its incredibly ingenious what they have created by wrapping "happy accidents" and shaky craftsmenship in a warm blanket of hipster nostalgia. I don't want to come across as an anitlomographist, I just think it's pretty absurd what marketing can do.

the truth!

Phtography as a weapon -Errol Morris

Photography as a weapon of mass confusion...
The most interesting part of this blog was Morris' conversation with Hany Farid. Farid brings up the idea of how people process visual information. To our eyes it makes no difference whether or not the photograph is fake, we are still processing the information it conveys. In fact, Farid suggests that when we are told something is fake it makes us remember it even more. So while we seem to be very concerned with fake photography in the media maybe we should just be concerned with which images are being presented to us and how. As we have said many times in this class, all photogrpahy is manipulation. But in the media, its context and use are ultimately what determine how we use and process these images. Morris shows this through his humorous adaptations of COlin Powell's photos.

deviant

dc streets

triangles

Landscape reflection

This project was a good exercise for me.  It was nice to be able to just completely hone in on one object.  Having such a strict subject matter really allowed me to focus on other aspects of the photo, like framing, lighting (and even composition when I started moving the shells around).  I think being on a remote island and photographing one thing obsessively got a little intense.  But it was good to be able to just do something and then be done with it.  Overall, a good project but I will need some time before I undertake something similar again.

crabscapes 2

crabscapes

Pixel Perfect Pascal Dangin: Response

It's amazing how much power Dangin has exerted over the media. More so than any other individual, Dangin is the most responsible for the media's portrayal of the human body. What I appreciated most about the article was the cognizance Dangin shows about his own work. In fact, I think congnizance is what makes Dangin the best in his field. Instead of manipulating photos to the point of dehumanizing the subjects, Dangin is careful to not overmanipulate. He is aware of what he is doing and the societal implications of his work. But at the end of the day, Dangin is just doing a job that is in high demand and he answers to his clients. So while I appreciate Dangin for his judgment, we have to keep in mind that he is limited by his clients desires.

I also appreciated the fact that the author places Dangin's work in the context of photographic history. Photo manipulation is definitely not a novelty, but has been conjoined to photography since its inception. The very act of taking a photo is manipulative; the photographer is choosing to include and exclude within his/her camera's frame, thus completely dictating what the viewer sees. Is postproduction manipulation really that different than production manipulation? I don't really think so. I wish there were more Dangin's so as to avoid photoshop nightmares. Also, when looking at photos we need to remember that they are representations of "reality" presented to us by various persons with varying persepectives.