In Conclusion

This sketch was done of a cave painting in Spain, ca 11,000 BC.

  

This is the original cave painting that was sketched above.

Black and white rendition of the above cave painting.

This boomerang dates to the 1820's and was found
by a researcher for National Geographic.

So, please tell us what you feel about these images above. Here are a few of the questions that guided our analysis: What do you think of the colors, the source, the quality? Any other observations? Does the sketch bring anything additional to the photo? Do you enjoy the black and white or color photo more? What emotions do these photos give you? Do you see any potential bias in the photos? How do you feel about the cropping?

GOTCHA!

The images above were actually taken, edited, and displayed by members of this blog. Did we fool you?

The originals follow:

As we looked back on all of our blog posts we realized we had a common theme: photos can be edited, be it changing color tones to black and white or sepia, staging, using sketches, juxtaposition, and cropping. It took us maybe 15 minutes to edit these photos and these simple changes completely changed your perception of them. Many believe that photos represent truth, when in reality editing is a huge part of that truth.

Sorry for fooling you but it does bring to light that just because a photo is a snapshot of history does not mean that it is necessarily an accurate one.

  

Warning: This blog looks fairly cynical as a whole. The emphasis evolved into one surrounding how photos can be changed and altered and the negatives of those actions. However we do not want everyone to no longer believe photos ever or think all editing it bad. Taking out red eye is very different from enlarging bones to make them seem like they came from a giant in most peoples eyes. We only want the public to be aware it is a possibility. Photos can be a great form of media to learn from, viewers just need to be vigilant and aware that they are not FACT.

Instagram: How Will This Affect Photos?

Instagram, a new social media network which allows users to share photos with digital filters, has become a popular application among many members of society. Instagram allows its users to take photos, and then edit and adjust the picture in order to make it look or appear in a certain way. Users can add filters to their photos in order to make the picture look like it was taken on a brighter day, or appear gloomier if they want. Users can also make their photos look "blurry" in some areas, brighter in others, and add filters making the photo black and white or sepia toned. Some of these filters have the main purpose of making the photo look "old" or "antiquated".

Take the pictures below for example. The first photo, the original, looks just as the photo was taken:

However, with the assistance of Instagram editing and filters, the photo can be transformed in such a way to look like the one below:

Not only do the filters add shading and make the photo appear as if the day was brighter, but it also crops the photo and gives it a different feeling. 

What danger does this pose to the future of photos? And more specifically, how does this affect how photos of archaeology and the ancient world will be more commonly manipulated by the public? Will the public have a heightened sense of how photos are more often than not manipulated, and then will therefore not be as gullible to believe every photograph as 100% true?

In my opinion, Instagram does much more good than bad, and this can be for several reasons. For starters, Instagram will allow the public access to far more photos than they may not have had access to, allowing them to see and analyze things they may not have had before. Having knowledge of the application will also teach users, and more importantly the public, that photos are commonly edited and manipulated. This will help them learn and keep in their minds that photos are not 100 percent truth, and to be wary of what they see. 

Screenshot of a NatGeo Instagram post.

In terms of ancient photos and photos of archaeology, Instagram may have little effect. (it is true that now National Geographic is using Instagram!! click here). Although, the public will benefit from the knowledge of knowing how often photos are manipulated which will generally help the perception of the past, I am unsure of how often photos of the ancient world will be "instagrammed". If they are instagrammed, I have a feeling this will benefit archaeology and the study of the ancient world since more of the public will see them and will be inclined to learn more about this photos. This will spark interest and allow the photos more viewing. The filters of Instagram may help them look cooler, which may even help increase interest in them. Although that may pose danger to the truthful depiction of the past, having the public know that photos are almost always "manipulated"(unless hash tagged with "no filter") on Instagram, will minimize this danger. 

Overall, Instagram is probably beneficial to photography, and it is a great application to be a user on!

Unfortunately, recently Instagram stopped twitter from being able to share the Instagram photos on Twitter's platform. I have a feeling this will have a little effect on the points I included above.

Reliable Sources?

          Our society seems to have decided upon certain sources that we can trust - National Geographic, Discovery Channel, History Channel, basically those educational companies. When the public sees a photograph published by one of these "trustworthy" sources, they are highly unlikely to question it. But all photos have at least some amount of bias - including those from the "trustworthy" sources.

          This poses a problem for the field of archaeology because these companies could post pictures with biases that sway the public opinion without them noticing. Now, this isn't some giant conspiracy of the "trustworthy" companies to use their sway to change the minds of the public for some evil plot - these companies usually have a pretty good reason to be trusted. But the public needs to be critical and realise that not everything that comes from these places is 100% unbiased.

          One example is from a previous post, where a National Geographic picture has numerous examples of bias. These aren't huge or game changing for the archaeological field, but they are hidden in there and the public needs to be aware of it.

   

There's also a lot of power in the logo. Just seeing one of the
  logos of these companies on or near a photo can conjure almost
  immediate trust. Recognize any of these?







                                               

Well, If you didn't the first is National Geographic, Animal Planet, then History channel.

Source

Black & White

"Time eventually positions most photographs, even the most amateurish, at the level of art." 

- Susan Sontag

In photography, there is an ongoing debate about whether black/white photography or color photography is more effective. Ultimately it comes down to the subject and I believe that in the field of archaeology, black and white photos have a certain advantage. Archaeology is often a romanticized field because of the mystery involved and black and white photography is a striking way to further convey these notions. Sometimes the vibrancy of color photos can take away from the seriousness of a subject, while black and white creates a somber tone in photos that can often be associated with the pasts of ancient civilizations. In an editorial in Antiquity magazine, Carver states, "We might leaf rapidly through a glossy magazine of perfect nothings, but these old documents have the whiff of research." Black and white photography preserves the romantic or mysterious aspect of the past that is often lost in bright colors. Black and white photos evoke a certain "awe" factor because of the idea that they are connected to the past. Carver captures this notion as black and white photography evoking "the nostalgia of a lost first love". Furthermore, this notion reminded my of the quote by Sontag as black and white photographs give the allusion of being from the past, they become more beautiful and mysterious - an art form.

In these photos of the "The Pyramid Of Giza" in Egypt, there is a distinct difference in reaction of a viewer between the color photograph and the black and white photograph. The color one is striking and the vivid colors make the pyramid appear to come alive. The black and white photograph, very obviously taken many many years ago, has a more historic feel to it. It makes me feel as if I have traveled back in time to the pyramids in the past. It encourages the viewer to think about exactly how old and well-constructed these structures truly are. I like the comparison between the past and the present and how this is further instituted by the use of the black and white photography.

Overall, I think it is important for archaeologists to understand the ways they can improve their capabilities in portraying visuals regarding their findings to the public. If black and white photography evokes a more serious tone and that what they are trying to reach to their viewers, it may be an effective way to do so. 

source 

Side note: an interesting article of examples of black and white photography vs color photography

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/17/famous-black-and-white-photos-with-color-breathed-into-them/

Staging Photos

          Almost all photos are staged in some way: some have objects deliberately placed for emphasis, some have colours brightened or darkened, some have people who are told how to pose, some are cropped in certain ways, and some pick and choose what is being shown in the picture. All of these are ways that that photos have that push and pull between truth and lie.

Were these peruvian mummies staged?

          This National Geographic photo was printed in the magazine to "[help] bring archaeology into people's homes through the pages of its magazine." According to National Geographic, these mummies and skulls were dug up in a cave in Peru in 1915 - which explains the black and white. However, these bones are obviously not in situ (I'm pretty sure the mummy wasn't sitting up and leaning on a bunch of boxes when it was found). Therefore, the photo was staged. The photographer had to decide where to put the mummies and the skulls, and this decision is inherently biased. The skulls in the photo are facing slightly away from the viewer for various reasons (modesty, not freaking people out, etc.). No other information came with the photo, so I don't know if the bodies were tied up when they were buried, but the fetal position and ropes evoke feelings of fear and sorrow - you feel bad for these mummies. The boxes in the background are a good way of propping the mummies up, but they also show some of the archaeological method (boxing up remains) - this could be good or bad for the profession. The biggest mummy is in the centre of the picture to draw your attention to it. I don't know what the rest of the dig site looked like, but the cropping also helps to draw attention to the biggest mummy.

Vladimir Putin, archaeologist?

          And then there's ways that photos can be staged for political purposes. In this photo, Vladimir Putin has just gone diving and found these two relatively-well preserved vases for the glory of Russia. The internet went crazy over this photo and people realized that it was staged. As great as Putin looks in a wet suit, he didn't actually find these vases at the bottom of the ocean - trained marine archaeologists found them. This is an example of staging a photograph for propaganda.

          What do you think of staged photos? Is one worse than the other?

          Hopefully this post helps to draw attention to some of the ways that photos are not always truthful, despite seeming that way.

Source

Learning from a Photo

East Island is a place surrounded by mystery. The giant Maoi statues cover the island and enthrall visitors. But archaeologists to this day try to determine how an ancient people moved these great statues.

One controversial idea is that the statues "walked". In this context walked means "rocking them from side to side, as one might move a refrigerator (Callaway).  

When this idea was first brought to my attention I  did not fully understand how this feat would be approached. How could humans sway a statue weighing tons. However, once I saw a picture I was able to see with my own eyes how the ropes could be attached to the statue and how people would need to pull it.




A Statue is "walking" in this picture. Without this photograph I would never have understood how this was possible.
    


Does a painted/drawn diagram of the same event do as good of a job at depicting this feat? Do you learn as much from this second image or is the photo better?


Source on information on Easter Island and Photograph:  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=easter-island-statues-might-have-been-walked-out-of-quarry

Source for drawn image:  http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&tbnid=Au2CPoGc3cPdjM:&imgrefurl=http://article.wn.com/view/2012/10/25/Easter_Island_statues_walked_into_position_say_experts/&docid=xEDitC1tMMI6WM&imgurl=http://i.ytimg.com/vi/J5YR0uqPAI8/0.jpg&w=480&h=360&ei=umahUOf_Neiy0QH5_YCwCg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=615&sig=107649702383616812191&page=1&tbnh=135&tbnw=175&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:13,s:0,i:116&tx=119&ty=91&biw=1280&bih=593