Photo Journal Part 2

These are my two examples of an art photograph, both captured by Andre Kertesz:

The following are my two examples of press photographs, both captured by Henri Cartier-Bresson:

 The main differences between the two sets of pictures is the setting and lighting of the two. It is obvious that the photographs taken by Kertesz in an artistic matter were planned and thought out thoroughly. The use of lighting and shadow to provide a certain feeling and effect is prevalent in both photos. On the other hand, the press photographs taken by Cartier-Bresson are not as thought out and seem to be more spontaneous than the art photographs. The lighting isn't as particular and the subject matter isn't placed specifically.

The similarities between the two is that they both invoke a certain feeling to the viewer of the photographs. Whether planned and lit or taken at a distinct, spontaneous moment, both sets of photographs relay a message and emotion. They both capture a subject that speaks to whoever is looking at the photographs and causes them to feel something.

I  believe that altering press photographs is not acceptable or ethical. The first part of our readings really captured my attention:

"Nowadays the photographer in the role of a photo editor (or other way around) could

make the same picture in Photoshop. Of course you have to wait for it… maybe thirty

minutes… and you might get a nice piece of art. Unfortunately some media will use it as

a journalistic photography, to tell us the news of the day."

It has become widely accepted that Photoshop or a similar form of photo-altering program is being used for lighting, effects, etc. It is also being used to crop subjects out or in and to change what a photographer or editor does not want to see. When sending a photograph out to the press and therefore to the people reading a newspaper, it should be as realistic as possible. It should be the exact photo that was originally taken so that the real story is being told. It would not be deemed ethical or acceptable to alter a press story to suit what a certain person would like to send out to the public, so it is just as unethical and unacceptable to do so with a photograph. Photographs tell the story just as much as the story itself, and they need to be the original story. Both Kertesz and Cartier-Bresson speak about simply capturing a moment and seeing that moment in a photograph when it is developed. They do not set it up or alter it, as it is the moment that was originally there. This is how press photographs should be viewed.

I feel a little more lenient towards the altering of art photographs, but only if it is done so by the photographer themselves. Photography for art takes time and technique, lighting and certain subject matter to convey what the artist would like. Taking a photograph and altering the light, colours, or sometimes even a slight subject change might be necessary to get the message to the viewer of the photograph. The artistic photo is completely up to the artist themself, and they are looking to send out a photograph that they personally want to, and therefore should have the free rein to do with it as they wish. A painter can add more paint and a dancer can change their steps without question, and an artistic photographer should be allowed to do the same. Cartier-Bresson even took it upon himself to completely destroy photographs that he deemed as less important as the rest, so that the ones that were preserved were the ones that sent the right message. This is what artists should be allowed to do.

Sources:

Readings from Module 10

http://thinkinpictures.visualsociety.com/2008/02/13/henri-cartier-bressons-scrapbook/