Assignment 3 - Photo Manipulation Assignment

Why Do We Manipulate Photos?

While the debate over whether photographers should be manipulating their photographs remains a topic for debate, I believe that photos can be altered and manipulated for positive reasons. Editing photos allows the photographer or artist the opportunity to further express themselves, convey a message or illustrate a point that normal, unedited photos would not be able to do. It also allows them to add or remove elements from a photo. For example, the photo in the link below has obviously been manipulated. Its goal is not to accurately represent the world, but has more implicit meaning. Despite the face that there are many different people, cultures and languages in the world, the photograph serves as a reminder that we as humans, share the same planet and that we are not as far apart, or from "different worlds" as we think we are.



For the photos I have chosen, my goal was to highlight and communicate what the focal point of my photos are. I did this by highlighting certain features and manipulating the photographs accordingly. I wanted to maintain a sense of realism in my photographs as opposed to conveying a meaning. I want the audience to see the photographs the same way I perceive and appreciate about the subjects in the photographs.

Photo 1: Intimacy

I began my manipulation of this photograph by using the crop tool. Cropping the picture also repositioned the horizon line, giving the photo a more horizontal composition. This horizontal composition creates a more peaceful and intimate feel. I also experimented with the shadows, midtones and highlights to bring out the details in the hands and place more emphasis on the hands. I increased the saturation in the photograph to give it a warmer feel. This also creates more intimacy in the photo as the restaurant that can be seen in the original photo is not as visible in the edited version of the photograph. This prevents the audience from getting distracted from the focal point of the photo. These effects I used exaggerate the point of focus and the details within them.

Photo 2: Historical City

Unlike the first photograph, I chose not to crop this one because I like the placement of the horizon line and the way the lines intersect in the middle of the photograph. Cropping the photo would change the horizon line and in turn, the focal point of the photograph. For this photo, I chose to bring up the reds and greens which highlighted the yellow tones, giving it a warmer feel. I also in creased the vibrance and saturation (slightly) which created a contrast between the colours, in turn making the building stand out more. I basically experimented with the existing colours and effects and exaggerated them slightly.I intentionally did not "over do" the effects in order to maintain a sense of realism in the photograph.

ASSIGNMENT 1: Photo Journal

Portraits in the early days were more labour intensive and difficult to produced. They were also comparatively more costly when taking into account dollar equivalencies then and present day. It also required more than one person to complete the portrait process. Photography was revolutionized when Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre invented a way to capture images on highly polished silver plates of copper. In the early years of photography portraits took longer to produce due to longer exposure times. This also meant that having a portrait done was far more time consuming and uncomfortable for the subject being photographed. The subject must remain completely still or their photograph would be ruined and come out with a smudged appearance. Photographs can now be taken in seconds and printed within minutes of taking the photograph. Photography now is more instantaneous and easily produced and mass produced for a fractional cost. Mechanically speaking, virtually anyone can have a portrait done by anyone with a camera. It is now possible to take photographs of yourself within seconds. Anyone can take multiple pictures of themselves within a 30 second span, where as in the past, taking one portrait took considerably longer and required more than one person. 

The subjects of photographers were usually important figures or the wealthy since they were the only ones who could afford to have portraits taken. Portraits were not only more costly, but were also a reflection of one’s social status. Some say that the rise of photography (including portraits) coincides with the rise of the middle class, which would undermine aristocracy. This is because people were demanding the same rights and privileges as aristocrats. This included portraits which were originally exclusive to the rich and powerful. Now, anyone, regardless of social class or status can have their portrait taken at a minimal cost. Portraits are no longer a reflection of social status. They have lost that original connotation. Portraits can be mass produced quickly and cheaply by virtually anyone.

                                                          Evita Peron

                         (This is what I meant by "anyone" can get a portrait done.)

Photography was not a common career in the 1850s. There were only a handful of “miniaturists” as they were called. As time went on, the number of these artists rapidly grew until it became a very popular art form and career for some. Now anyone with a camera and some training can call themselves a photographer. It is not a highly technical skill to take portraits like it was in the past. It no longer requires more than one person to take a portrait.

Technology has helped improve the quality speed and cost of portraits through out history. It has also helped improve the quality of the pictures we take now. We can take photos of objects far away, or up close with ease. It has also allowed for shorter exposure times, allowing portraits and photos to be produced and reproduced more quickly. It has also allowed us to take higher resolution pictures which allow the photographer to showcase and highlight specific details. It has allowed photographers to add effects, and correct photo faults (eg. red eye, blurry images, low lighting). Technology has made it simple to manipulate photos in virtually any way imaginable. It is now possible to super impose photos on a variety of objects other than photo paper, for example, posters, mugs, t-shirts, even metallic surfaces. Most of all, technology has allowed for photography to be more portable and convenient. It has allowed for photography to be more spontaneous, and indirectly, more creative.

Works Cited

2 Precursors of the Photographic Portrait by Gisele Freund 
Excerpt from A History of Photography by Lemagny and Rouille 

Photo Credits

www.thedaglab.com

http://www.photohistory-sussex.co.ukfunnyphotos.net.audagprocess.htm

www.voiceseducation.org
www.funnyphotos.net.au

 www.techxo.com

DB3

Are Posters Ruining Art?.....and then some.

Art can be mechanically reproduced for the purpose of accessibility but not for originality.  It is impossible and impractical to have an artist, more specifically painters produce thousands of copies of one painting without the aid of mechanical reproduction. Having said this, one cannot have and “original” piece of art if anyone off the street can walk into a store and buy the same thing.  The best example of this is posters of original paintings.

When something is reproduced for so many times it is not art, but merely a replica or representation of art. It is not “original.” Therefore, mass production of an artwork is no longer original. For example, is someone has a poster of the Mona Lisa, they do not have an original piece of art. They have a representation of the original artwork, in a different form. Mechanical reproduction of art is important, not for the sake of originality, but for the sake of availability to people who appreciate the original work, since it is impossible for everyone to own the same original artwork. 

Mona Lisa poster vs. Mona Lisa bastardization. Which is more "original"?

Photography is an art. In my opinion, art is all encompassing. Art can be expressed in many forms: photography, painting, visual arts, music, dancing, and virtually everything that requires creativity and expression in a non conventional way. All these forms contribute to what I think art is. Photography art contributes to the growing and thriving world of the arts. No two people are the same. In the same way, the (original) art of two people will never be the same.

Henry Peach Robinson created “Fading Away” in 1858 to prove a point and perhaps change the way people viewed photography. He wanted to use original and innovative techniques on his photographs to create something original that no one had ever seen before. He did not like the idea that photographers were limited to the basic effects of the camera. He wanted his art to be more eloquent and vibrant than a normal camera at the time could produce. In short, he did not want to be restricted by the machinery he used. Robinson also wanted people to “see” the image he photographed the way he did. His new method of composition helped him achieve this by highlighting what he thinks is beautiful about the picture. Parallels can be drawn between the photographers and the restrictions of their machinery and the criticism of Robinson’s work. Traditional means of photography did not always provide the best results for clarity and were not always able to showcase different elements in the photograph (for example, the sky and the subject of a picture). Robinson’s composition technique allowed for this, and proved that it is possible to portray the sky as clearly as the subject in the photo, inadvertently breaking beyond the restrictions of the machinery at the time. Similarly, Robinson felt that the criticism he received to avoid altering a photograph limited his creativity and originality, and this new method was his way of protesting against traditional methods of art photography. 

Digitization will allow a quicker and cost effective means of obtaining replicas or representation of art. More demand means there is a need for faster and cheaper means of reproducing art. We should not deprive people of art for the sake of originality. Although, the person who possess such replicas should be aware that what they have is not original art. It is a representation of the work in a different form. However, the more accessible and mass produced these become, the less original one can call their copy “art”.

 Marilyn: "Is pop art still original if anyone can own it?"

Works Cited
http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/robinson.htm

Photo Credits
http://en.popart.name/
www.artchive.com
galleryar.blogspot.com
http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/robinson.htm