David Campbell raises the question about whether people still believe what they see in a photograph.In a world of advertising and multiple-media rich environments image is key and often needed to stand out in an overcrowded market place. As I progress through DPP I am learning more about how I can tweak reality to achieve an ideal image. Usually I take photos to remind me of places I’ve been to and times spent with friends and family. Therefore I want my images to replicate the true scene and so I would do minimal editing. However in my second assignment I did use Photoshop to construct images I wanted to communicate the message I had in mind. I am starting to envisage 2 types of photography, one for documenting and recording moments and the other for fine art and meanings.
On the other hand why does photography cause such controversy? Does it matter that images are manipulated to satisfy and indulge their intended audience. Is it no different to someone embellishing the truth when writing in a newspaper or their biography. What about the artist who paints his or her own interpretation of what is in front of him? Is the finished picture any less if it is not an accurate representation?
I need to get out of the habit of being too much like a tourist, taking countless photos, and be more constructive with the images I take and the message I want to portray, however there are still times when the instinctive photos are needed to maintain a sense of reality.
To get two match sticks to balance and positioned at just the right angle to hold the light bulb took an incredible amount of time….and a few broken light bulbs later I finally managed to capture the image Light Fantastic (left). Does the fact that I have written how I photographed this still life make it plausible? Or does reason and commonsense question the validity of what I have written. That it is impossible for two match sticks to support the weight of a light bulb. You can find out the truth about this image for my second assignment here.