viz. - photoshop

Mitt Romney vs. Big Bird: When Enthymemes Attack

Todd Battistelli — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:00:00 +0000

Image Source: Unknown

In last week's debate, one of the more memorable moments was Mitt Romney's vow to cut off government funding to public television despite his appreciation of both Big Bird and Jim Lehrer. Because he would neither raise taxes nor borrow money from China, Romney argued, he would cut programs like PBS. I suppose Romney intended the statement as a bit of red meat for his base—those who would rather their tax monies not go to PBS—and perhaps also for the putative independent/undecided voter who also distrusts such government spending. I also suppose that for such audiences the line worked. However, for other audiences, Romney's enthymeme provoked an outcry, because those audiences do not share the unstated premise in his argument that PBS does not merit continued funding. Sesame Street lovers (and Romney haters) across the web responded with a torrent of photoshopped images criticizing Romney's position.

Video Credit: PBS

Of all the PBS programming to attack (in addition to Lehrer's News Hour), Romney chose one of the most beloved children's television programs in the United States. Advocates have long grown used to defending public TV in the face of threats to cut government funding. In the video above, Fred Rogers defends PBS funding before a Senate committee considering cutting the budget for public broadcasting. The American Rhetoric website offers a transcript of his testimony, where Rogers wins the support of a Senator who was previously unfamiliar with Rogers' work.

Romney may not be familiar with the Rogers story, or he may not care. At any event, he felt confident enough to declare that Big Bird would feast no more from the giant bird feeder of government funds should he win the presidency. I suspect that if Big Bird could face down an Egyptian demon and assist a lost soul on his journey through the afterlife, Romney doesn't pose too great a challenge. And if Big Bird needs any help, he can find it in the wide-spread support being expressed on image boards and blogs.

Video Credit: Sesame Street

In the spirit of Sesame Street, I'm excluding images with graphic language or imagery, though they're out there if you want to search for them. The images cover a range of arguments, from supporting President Obama or criticizing Romney to supporting PBS, and they use a range of emotional tenors from good-hearted ribbing to sharp satire to anger and sadness.

Image Credit: John Aravosis

Much like Vice President Biden's summation of the first Obama term that bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive, the above image contrasts the different "aims" of the Obama and Romney campaigns, placing bin Laden and Big Bird behind bulls-eyes.

Image Credit: everyonedienow

Image Credit: leuqarraquel

Two Kanye West memes have been repurposed for this debate. In the first, his claim that George W. Bush doesn't care about black people has been replaced with Big Bird West saying that Romney doesn't care about Big Bird. In the second, Big Bird stands in the background as West pulls away the microphones from Willard Mitt "Taylor Swift" Romney, declaring "But Big Bird is one of the best birds of all time." (I have to admit that West's more proactive moderating style might have helped the debate stay on track better than Lehrer's tepid interjections.)

Image Source: LabCoder

Other images use Sesame Street common places. In one, Big Bird informs the viewer that today is brought to us by the letter U for unemployed. In another, using a frame from an episode, he sits sadly with two children on a Sesame Street stoop holding a sign reading "Will work for food."

Image Source: johnnyhuckleberry

Image Source: cinemascapes08

The real urban streets too provide source images with Occupy Wallstreet protesters replaced with muppets from the TV show. The #occupysesamestreet meme does predate Romney's Big Bird moment, but the images seem even more relevant now.

Image Source: Unknown

Familiar Obama campaign imagery serves as the basis for others, with Big Bird appearing in Shepard Fairey's famous "Hope" poster, standing next to the red, white and blue sunrise symbol, or picking up on the campaign's "We've Got Your Back" ad.

Image Credit: Unknown

Image Credit: davonemadisonjackson

Image Credit: perpetualfrizz

“Colorizing” the Black-and-White Past

Chris Ortiz y Prentice — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 15:06:41 +0000

Image Credit: Sanna Dullaway

Abraham Lincoln has been colored in by means of computer software. There are more color photographs of the past today than there have ever been before: and that is because people, like artist Sanna Dullaway, are using Photoshop to colorize black and white ones. In this post, I wonder why.

To approach an understanding, it will be helpful to consider a few examples of real color photographs taken in the later Nineteenth or early Twentieth Century. Color photography got its start with famed Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell’swork on the perception of color in the 1850s, although it wasn't until 1907 that the Lumière brothers introduced the first commercially viable technology for color photography. In 1909, French banker and philanthropist Albert Kahn (not to be confused with the architect by that name) hired professional photographers to go out and capture the world in true color. Here's a French scene from that groundbreaking series:

Image Credit: Musée Albert Kahn

With Lumière brothers' “Autochrome” technology, photographs from the early Twentieth Century started to flow. In the one below, a French soldier looks out from his post in Eglingen, Haut-Rhin: 1917.

Image Credit: Paul Castelnau

And below is a photograph of Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii, who travelled the Russian Empire from 1909 to 1915, capturing its peoples and places in color.

Image Credit: Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii Collection (Library of Congress)

These photographs shock me into a realization so basic it is hard to put into words. History is really real. The old cities were really there, in full color. Men and women looked then like they do today; streams were blue then, hair was red, clouds were white, clothes were blue. The world was just as bright in the past as it is today. Hundreds, thousands, of years ago was fully as present to those living then as today is present to us. All the black and white photos and books through which I have learned about history had allowed a creeping sort of disbelief into my attitude towards the past. I realize I have sometimes equated the past with the media through which it has been made present to me. These color photographs inspire me to imagine the past anew as pulsing, felt, immediate.

Of course, color photography is a medium; it is still a technology for capturing a visual effect and reproducing it to a now distant viewer. The immediacy I am feeling is in my imagination. I think it is this feeling of immediacy which people who are colorizing black and white photos are trying to produce.

Image Credit: Sanna Dullaway

In this image, artist Sanna Dullaway has colorized Alfred Eisenstaedt’s iconic “V-J Day in Times Square,” originally published with the caption: In New York's Times Square a white-clad girl clutches her purse and skirt as an uninhibited sailor plants his lips squarely on hers.

It's like it happened yesterday.

The Funny Faces of Politics: No Photoshop Required

Todd Battistelli — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 13:00:00 +0000

Image Credit: Reuters

As we’re in the middle of another presidential campaign, I thought I’d devote my inaugural viz. post to an aspect of visual political rhetoric: photos capturing politicians with odd facial expression or in odd poses. One of the better known examples of this phenomenon is the above photo of John McCain from the last debate in the 2008 presidential campaign. In the still image, McCain stands behind Barack Obama, seeming to lurch after him while disrespectfully sticking out his tongue and reaching out with his hands. I want to stress “seeming,” though, because viewing McCain’s movement in context offers an alternative explanation.

Video Credit: C-SPAN

McCain’s seemingly undignified lurch occurred at the end of the debate, as he, Obama and moderator Bob Schieffer stood up from the table to shake hands. As seen in C-SPAN’s video (starting at 1:29:42), McCain is uncertain of which direction to round the table. In his hesitation, he makes a funny, self-deprecating gesture to make light of his momentary confusion. Not being the most graceful person myself, I can imagine doing something similar were I in McCain’s position. Yet the lurching image soon proliferated on the web, casting McCain as a creepy, out-of-touch old man.

Photojournalists do take a great number of pictures, so their capturing the occasional odd look isn’t unexpected. What I find curious, however, is the editorial decision that goes into releasing still photos of odd expressions when other, more decorous photos are available. As with many aspects of visual culture, there’s a tumblr that collects these funny faces titled Stupid Faces of Politics, which bills itself as “a non-partisan collection of amusing faces made by politicians, both past and present.”

Image Credit: Stupid Faces of Politics

Looking through the images, you could make the argument that photojournalists capture politicians as human beings, including all their foibles, though a still photo out of context can be used to vilify as much as humanize, as the McCain example suggests. The images could also serve the function of afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. The viewing public can enjoy a good chuckle at people in positions of power. Editorial policy, however, is tangential to my interests here.

More relevant to visual rhetorical analysis are questions about the use of these images and what those uses say about the production and reading of persuasive texts. My students sometimes run into trouble when they cite a source without understanding its context, but ignorance doesn’t seem to play a role in the operation (or manipulation) of context when it comes to these photos. The context of these photos is widely understood: weird expressions cross everyone’s face for fractions of a second, and sometimes they get recorded for posterity. Yet, they are not dismissed as “bad” photos. On the contrary, they serve as a important resource for rhetorical invention.

Image credit: Laura Clawson

When they appear on partisan blogs, these images are used not only for humor but also to support larger narratives about politicians and their parties. The above photo can be read as Mitt Romney desperately attempting to engage his empathy circuits, as blogger Laura Clawson suggests. Or below, President Obama seems to sport a patrician and elitist mug that looks down on common people, which is the narrative blogger Nice Deb invokes.

Image Credit: Nice Deb

In an age of photoshopping, what are the different suasive functions that these “authentic” images perform in contrast with, say, an image of Joe Biden manipulated to put a colorful lollipop in his hand and an exaggerated tongue extruding from his mouth? Do the ostensibly documentary origins of non-manipulated photos enhance their appeal?

Image Credit: Stogie

At a step removed from the bloggers who use these photos to construct arguments, I also wonder about which photos get released by which sources. Might they reveal some subtle argumentative strategy? Does the White House under Obama, for instance, release more odd photos of John Boehner than the Bush White House did of Harry Reid? This might not be the best example, though, as Boehner seems to be rather more susceptible to awkward photos than other politicians (saving perhaps Joe Biden, as photos like the one below attest).

Image credit: 500 Still Frames of Joe Biden Eating a Sandwich

I Turn My Camera On, Then My Photoshop

Rachel Schneider — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:51:58 +0000

Image Credit: Everett Hiller

H/T: Crushable

While I’ve done some recent fangirling over Ryan Gosling and Benjamin Franklin, I would have never imagined I could be in a photograph with them. At least, not until I saw Everett Hiller’s holiday party photographs, into which he Photoshopped various celebrities.

Image Credit: Everett Hiller

According to Hiller, “Every year my wife and I throw a party and when I send out the photos I add famous people.” The results are extremely entertaining and include some amazing guests: everyone from The Rock and Tom Cruise to George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Image Credit: Everett Hiller

Hiller’s photographs represent an unusual extension of the kind of fan culture in which Gosling, Whitney Houston, and I Made America participate. While the joke lies in the juxtaposition of major Hollywood celebrities with the homely setting, these recontextualizations act like fan fiction. For example, if Shia LaBeouf is known for his alcohol-fueled antics, placing a bleary-eyed picture of him next to a smirking man builds new stories from established canon. Having an impeccably besuited Neal Patrick Harris amidst drunken revelers winks at his How I Met Your Mother character Barney Stinson, who always takes perfect photographs. Positioning Ryan Gosling among everyday partygoers expands on established Gosling meme fanon, in which Gosling is happy to talk feminism and typography with you.

Image Credit: Everett Hiller

However, these kinds of images also build or serve to make arguments about the nature of the celebrities included. For example, many Republicans accused Obama in 2008 of being a “celebrity” who was out-of-touch with Americans because he was “worr[ied] about the price of arugula”—and they’re still making that argument today. The above image, which integrates Obama in the middle of a middle-class (and otherwise white) party, visually argues that Obama is a Regular Joe who exists on the same level as his fellow citizens. The surprise of the guy in the green hat behind him even naturalizes him into the setting insofar as it would probably be a huge shock for most of us to meet Obama in some guy’s living room.

Image Credit: Everett Hiller

Outside of a political context, however, picturing Tom Cruise cackling while posed on a piñata reinforces the narrative of Cruise as a crazed Scientologist, a narrative that has been used to criticize Scientology’s practices. These photographs work based on an idea of celebrity that is simultaneously near and far: celebrities are both just like us and stand out in the crowd. Hiller’s Photoshopping makes the famous blend in naturally and unnoticeably with their surroundings but also invites viewers to play a game of Where’s Waldo, looking to see how many late-night comedians stand in the background. As Joseph Roach defines celebrity as the possession of “it” or “the arresting, charismatic power of celebrities,” these photographs arrest the celebrities within a visual frame and encourage the viewers to sympathetically merge themselves with them.

Image Credit: Newsweek

This seems like a pretty benign use of Photoshopping technology; however, the placement (and displacement, in the case of Hillary Clinton) of celebrities in new contexts can have the power to shock and disgust. The above image created by Newsweek to grace their magazine cover drew outrage from those who thought Tina Brown was tasteless to put a dead Princess Diana next to the daughter-in-law she will never know. The accompany story, which imagines how Diana might have been at 50, is a kind of fanfiction, but the picture’s power meant that more people focused on it. What we can see from this is that while anybody with the money can create any sort of fictionalized image, Photoshop’s rhetoric is governed by decorum. Using the technology to make funny pictures is fine, but it’s not allowed to pervert truth—probably because it’s so easy to do just that. If perception is reality, Photoshop is a powerful actor in the war of words—and a valuable tool for retooling actors.

Image Manipulation and Self Esteem

catherine_c — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:11:52 +0000

Image Credit: Rachel Stephens Photography, by way of the Nashville Examiner

At the same time that several European governments are considering trying to force advertisers and brands to include disclaimers on photoshopped promotional images for the purposes of bolstering viewers' (and particularly young girls') self esteem, American photographer Rachel Stephens has promoted the use of photoshop to her clients on the premise that image manipulation can function as a source of empowerment. Anna North's November 8th Jezebel entry "Photoshop Treatment Not Just for Models Anymore" includes an unsolicited email from Stephens forwarded by a reader of the site in which Stephens writes that "every woman deserves to see herself retouched."

Stephens' site (slightly NSFW) bills itself as "Photography for Women" and features the tagline, "Empowering Women Through Photography." The site features sample photographs, and testimonials. In an interview in the Nashville Examiner, Stephens explains that photography played a significant role in rescuing her from depression. She explains the premise of her photography and photo manipulation in terms of women's self esteem as being a response to a need she first felt herself: "Being someone who has struggled with her weight and the self image and self esteem fallout from that, I know first hand out amazing it feels to see an image of yourself devoid of the flaws you always hyper-focus on...Seeing myself beautiful was like allowing myself to accept good things in my life again...It opened so many doors for me to live life again" (Nashville Examiner).

Image Credit: Rachel Stephens Photography, by way of the Nashville Examiner

Stephens' photography presents a new side of the debate on photo manipulation. Rather than being used to promote the sale of clothing by presenting models who are digitally tailored to the clothes, Stephens captures consenting women who desire their images to be manipulated and corrects their flaws. One might argue that working toward accepting "the flaws you hyper-focus on," or at least an earnest attempt not to "hyper-focus" on them would be better long term solutions. Whether or not these pictures boost esteem in the long run seems to be a matter of one's personal outlook. Stephens' photography grants its subjects the right to look vicariously at manipulated images and to counter a world of manipulated images with the confidence that they too can be made to appear "ideal" or "perfect" through photoshop.

A number of Jezebel commenters defend Stephens' photography. One user suggests that there is no reason to approach Stephens' work with as much "negativity" as North does in her article and suggests that image manipulation, in this case, seems actually empowering. For my part, I wasn't able to detect "negativity" in North's claims that there is "nothing wrong with wanting a retouched photo of yourself if that's your thing" or in her reaction to Stephens' presentation of her photo manipulation on her site with "waist-whittling animations" that she finds "a little disturbing" (Jezebel). Some commenters point out that most professional photographers do some degree of image manipulation while others claim to be more reluctant to accept significantly altered images of themselves, preferring high-quality realistic images instead.

Image Credit: Rachel Stephens Photography, by way of the Nashville Examiner

In an age where some advertisers insist that the manipulations that lead to their presentation of an "ideal" makes their products more appealing to real women, Stephens suggests that making real women live up to these artificial ideals is a inroad to empowerment. While I remain reluctant to accept that the solution for a photoshop saturated world is more photoshop, particularly, as a commenter on Jezebel points out, when this "empowering" photoshop commits some of the same sins as the most controversial photoshopped ads including cutting down waistlines to unnatural proportions and occasionally erasing belly buttons, I am fascinated by Stephens' outlook on the power of image manipulation to affect self-esteem.

I'll conclude with one of Stephens' statements from the Examiner piece: "Rachel will show the women their photographs, during shooting, and "I always hear 'is that me? Who is that!' followed by girlish laughter and often times a few tears.' When her subjects leave, Rachel sees the women feel better about themselves than when they came in, 'and they earned it. It is no small task to strip down, literally, to you most vulnerable self and allow yourself to be photographed. I don't take that lightly and am very humbled by each woman who gives me her trust in this way. I strive to give them the gift of their true beauty and I hope that they allow those feelings to stay with them'" (Examiner).

Reboot: Photoshop Disasters by Tim Turner

catherine_c — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:20:56 +0000

Image Credit: Ralph Lauren, by way of Photoshopdisasters

As a followup to my post last week on the British government's plan to meet with health officials, fashion executives, and advertisers in October 2010 to discuss the legal status of the un-indicated use of photoshopping in advertisements, I would like to re-showcase a blog entry by Tim Turner from October 2009 when British and French politicians began discussing possible photoshop disclaimer requirements.

The above ad, in which the circumference of Filippa Hamilton's waist appears to be less than that of her head, is a prime example of photoshop abuses in fashion photography and the rationale for next month's meetings. View Tim's "Photoshop Disasters" entry reposted after the break, or link to the original post and the comments, which include a video interview with Ms. Hamilton.

Some of you may have seen this story on the Huffington Post about an apology issued by Ralph Lauren for the peculiarly skinny model pictured here:

The image was first noted by Photoshop Disasters, one of my favorite blogs about visual culture (other than Viz., of course). The images collected there are often hilarious and sometimes unintentionally tragic (as this super skinny model indicates). The blog itself is a terrific read, and a hilarious way to pass a few spare minutes. What's great about it, however--in addition to its delightfully relentless snark--is how it invites a deeper engagement with images. In many cases, the tragedy of the poor photoshopping is obvious, in an impossibly thin waist or a terrifyingly elongated neck. In other cases, you have to look harder and closer to locate the details. One of the unintended consequences of living in the age of photoshop may be an increase in visual literacy: spotting the falsifications sometimes requires a keen eye for close-reading.

Illegal Photoshopping

catherine_c — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:37:49 +0000

Image Credit: The Illusionists.org

The pervasive use of photoshopped images in advertisements and magazine features has stirred up a veritable maelstrom of debate over the ethics and legality of image manipulation. On Monday, CBS News published an article on the British government's decision to meet with "advertisers, fashion editors, and health experts to discuss how to curb the practice of airbrushing and promote body confidence among girls and women."

Over the last year, British and French politicians have debated whether photoshopped images used in advertisements should be required to feature a digital modification disclaimer. Next month, several British politicians will argue that labeling airbrushed photos will make it clear that the images are mere "digital fantasies."

The image above is from the promotional materials for a project-in-progress by filmmaker Elena Rossini entitled The Illusionists. Rossini's documentary will seek to locate "the obsession over the pursuit of fairness, youth, and thinness for women - and the exaltation of those qualities," in a "deep rooted fear in the power of confident, mature women" and will seek to explore the ways that such expectations function as "one of the most effective weapons used...to stifle women's advancement and thus maintain the status quo."

The real issue, as identified by Rossini in her proposal, is one of age and impressionability. From youth onwards advertisers and fashion mavens attempt to train us (increasingly through the use of altered images) to associate diversity and age with unattractiveness, and whiteness, youth, and thinness with beauty.

Rossini's stance is akin to that articulated by Jo Swinton, a member of British parliament, in September 2009. Swinton proposed that modified photos should be banned "entirely in ads aimed at children under 16" according to the New York Times. Swinton explains that photoshopped ads lacking disclaimers may cause "teenagers and women" to feel "unhappy with themselves." The kind of digitized perfection made possible by photoshopping, demonstrated below in a video from the Dove "Real Beauty" Campaign, is utterly impossible to achieve in reality:

Video Credit: Dove Real Beauty Campaign

The Liberal Democratic Party, of which Swinson is a member, adopted her proposal into their official platform a year ago and is planning to take action next month. Similar legislation was proposed in September of 2009 in the French National Assembly by Valerie Boyer (U.M.P), who claimed that photoshopped images "can lead people to believe in realities that very often, do not exist" (Times). According to the 2009 article, Boyer called for warning labels on retouched photos used for "editorial purposes as well as on those in print ads" and would threaten violators with finds of 37,500 euros (currently $49,676) or "as much as 50 percent of the cost of an advertisement."

In Monday's CBS article, a number of European health professionals sounded in on the issue including Susan Ringwood, chief executive of Beat, a British charity focused on eating disorder awareness, and Dr. Adrienne Key of Britain's Royal College of Psychiatrists. Both suggested that the inclusion of legally mandated disclaimers on photoshopped images might help to counteract their ability to function as triggers or cues for individuals with eating disorders. Dr. Key points out that the link between "repeated exposure of thin or perfect bodies" and "a drop in mood, more dissatisfaction in the viewers' bodies, and drastic dieting behavior" is increasingly supported by research. Indeed, depictions of extreme (and digitally enhanced) thinness or, as the feminist blog in the Gawker family, Jezebel.com, has waged an ongoing anti-airbrushing campaign to demonstrate, the reduction or elimination of bones from models in store catalog item images and promotional campaigns, grant viewers - regardless of whether or not they believe these often startling images to be realistic - an open invitation for self-criticism.

Image Credit: Ann Taylor, by way of Jezebel.com

Dodai Stewart of Jezebel poses her apt take on the issue in a response to Monday's CBS article, asking whether it "won't...take more than legislation to correct how we currently look at women's bodies?" Stewart writes that "although extensive Photoshop is detrimental - magazine editors and advertisers are, essentially, lying to us, the public - the real problem is that what we consider 'attractive' has also become, for the most part, unattainable." She calls for a broader campaign, extending beyond legislation (though that "would be great"), and "demanding diversity," "offering feedback" and relying on consumers "cognizan[ce]of the brands we support."

Jezebel's insistence on raising awareness of the widespread use (and abuse) of photoshopping in promotional materials and their refusal to bow down to the demands of corporations to obscure their attempts at misrepresenting human figures and elevating unattainably "desirable" beauty standards is a step towards a broader realization of the effects of visual manipulation upon self-image, perceptions of beauty, and body confidence.

Quickguide to Creating web images

noelradley — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:31:56 +0000

Quickguides for Creating Web Images

Size—sizes vary, but here are some typical sizes (in pixels) for common types of images. You may need to add or subtract or tweak the ratios slightly depending on where you are placing the images (e.g. different themes in Drupal may use different banner sizes).

Banner/Header: 760 Width x 132 Height (about a 5:1 ration)

Logo: 200 x 200

Thumbnail: 90 x 90

Feature Image: 400 x 400

Resolution—depending on whether your image is for the web or for print, you might need to give your image a different resolution. Screens use the ppi measurement (pixels per inch). If you see dpi, this is referring to resolutions used by printers (dots per inch).

72 ppi (pixels per inch) is lowest resolution. This should be fine for most images that will be appearing on most screens.

150 ppi is medium

300 is highest. Higher resolutions mean bigger files, so unless you really need super-high resolution, 72 or 150 is usually fine.

Color—when setting up a new document in some Adobe programs, you may be asked to choose between color modes.

RBG: Red, blue green. This mode is for images that are meant to be displayed on a screen.

CMYK: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Key Black. This mode is used for images meant to be printed on a page.

File Type—some file types work better in print and some, again, on screen.

GIF: best if you need to maintain transparency in an image.

PNG: similar to GIF but supports more colors.

JPG: a compression mode better for print than screen.

http://viz.dwrl.utexas.edu/files/InDesignInstructions_0.pdf

Photoshop Disasters

timturner — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:02:19 +0000

Some of you may have seen this story on the Huffington Post about an apology issued by Ralph Lauren for the peculiarly skinny model pictured here:

Digital Manipulation and the Ethics of Representation

micklethwait — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:15:16 +0000

An article this week on Stinky Journalism, Danielle Mastropiero's "Photoshopped Images Booted from Press Photo Contest," calls to mind a couple of other similar incidents in recent memory: first, Adnan Hajj's laughably bad Photoshop manipulations of smoke plumes over Beirut during Israel's summer '06 bombing campaign; and second, Iran's equally laughable manipulation of publicity photos from their summer '08 test missile test launch.

Image source: Stinky Journalism.org

Click on 'voteringen' in the menu of this Flash-animated comparison of Christensen's submitted photographs, their RAW files, and the Photoshop auto-corrections.

The ethical question of representation in these cases branches out beyond simple questions of technique. My gut reaction is that these questions of authenticity in reportage only seem to crop up in depictions of 'the Other'--realities of Haiti, Lebanon, and Iran being the examples I've chosen--but other cases come to mind as well, such as the indignation over unretouched portraits of Gov. Palin (for the cover of Newsweek) and Sen. McCain (for the cover of Atlantic Monthly).

As far as pedagogy is concerned, these cases of photographic manipulation provide an object lesson in the subtleties of plagiarism that are harder to convey than taking credit for another's work. Digital media and tools of manipulation have already deposited this comfortable academic principle in a vague, soupy ethical context. Still, how one represents the works (or realities) of another person opens the door to the specter of plagiarism. A careful exposition and discussion of these cases of manipulation and reportage might help to elucidate these vague or complicated situations for the average undergraduate student.

The Magic of Photography (and Photoshop)

timturner — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:12:01 +0000

Image credit: http://www.thewvsr.com/adsvsreality.htm

A friend sent along a link to this story at urlesque.com touting a web site with side-by-side comparisons of the official photographs of fast food menu items alongside their rather depressing real-world counterparts. The Platonic Ideal has never seemed so far away.... Meet the *real* Egg McMuffin, after the jump.

Image credit: http://www.thewvsr.com/adsvsreality.htm

Looks like the real world version doesn't come with a halo.