A. Obama

A photojournalist is supposed to be unbiased and to only shoot what
they see, right? Well how can that be when the photos taken are
cleaned, edited, manipulated, skewed, etc.

Can I say this image was manipulated? Not in the sense that we have
grown to accept.
Not like when Brady moved dead Civil War bodies to make a better
picture.
Not even when a guy can take one shot of a soldier looking one way and
a second shot taken a split second afterwards of civilians looking
another and digitally place them together.
What I do mean is when a photographer nowadays can take hundreds of
photos of a man at a podium and an editor can choose one that makes
him look like Das Feurer.
Personally, I think it is hilarious how easy and manipulated a
population is today.
Do you think an Obama supporter would ever run this in his pape? Even
if it was the only photo available?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hi Aaron,

Glad to see you're doing well post Navy!

Thought I would comment on the Obama photo. I agree with you totally about the manipulation - most viewers don't understand how subtle messages can be communicated in an image just by the positioning, timing, lighting and editorial choice that results in a particular image being published.

At the same time, it's rather refreshing to see Obama in a rather unflattering light since nearly all of U.S. media have him tagged as the new savior. Couldn't find the original AP image, but here's a link to the typical example:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2194/2281055958_2ff2cfc2c5.jpg

The image you've posted is not being carried en masse ... hmmm ... would that be manipulation as well?

All my best
Leslie
LAShively@aol.com

Popular Posts