Recently, I have been thinking about the staging of photos. Obviously, it can be argued that every photograph is staged. Most photos are framed a certain way in order to convey a point. Even more so, more often than not, photos are manipulated to convey a particular point. But, are all photographs staged? Can this be argued that every single photo is the product of a certain motive to manipulate what is real? Even more so, how important is it for photos to be more beautiful versus more accurate. If photographs are intended to be more visually pleasing, is it true then that their reliability is up to question?
Take some of the following National Geographic Photographs, for example:
All of these photographs are beautiful. The colors are incredible, the quality is fantastic, and they entrance you to continue looking at them for extended amounts of time. If the colors are enhanced, does that mean they are staged and not factual? If they are edited to improve their quality or "beauty," are the photos inaccurate? How does this affect archaeology and how archaeological findings are enhanced in attempt to obtain a larger audience... Things to think about going further.
I feel like a judge when I say, I couldn't tell you what "too much editing" is but I can for sure see it when comparing an edited image to the original. Overall I think the general jist cannot be changed but some editing is okay.
ReplyDeleteI feel like Nat Geo's ultimate purpose is to attract viewers to their images. Often this means making the photographs more beautiful. Personally I don't see any problem with this as it makes photographs more enticing, as long as the integrity of the photograph is being preserved.
ReplyDelete