Skip to content

Debate over HDR photo

January 18, 2012
by

At the end of Tuesday’s class, I referred to the controversy over a photo manipulated and published by the Washington Post. Poynter.org has a good overview and a shorter take on experts’ divergent views. Too glib to say, merely, “Get used to it.” What does it portend for the future of reliable, credible information? What do you think?

Advertisements
5 Comments leave one →
  1. Geoffrey Stephens permalink
    January 18, 2012 11:01 pm

    I feel it will have us (hopefully) evolve to go and get info for ourselves. In a sense just get the headline of the idea or story being presented and work from there. Then like one mentioned about last post, not being judged upon sexuality, race, etc. we can make our presumptions/decisions based on what we’ve found about person. For example, if we saw pic of her with gun & bikini, read up/study/review what she’s done over her life career and not be bent on picture but fact.

  2. Samantha Jutson permalink
    January 19, 2012 12:53 pm

    If the world keeps giving us non credible information, then that will give everyone the inititive to go out and find out the truth on our own. How do we know that this is the real picture or if it is fake? Pictures are always going to be questioned from now till years and years from now.

    • Geoffrey Stephens permalink
      January 22, 2012 12:23 am

      Thank you Photoshop! Amazing technology coming around to bite us 🙂

  3. nwhelan permalink
    January 19, 2012 10:19 pm

    I see no issue with this technology. This photograph was not altered in a way that misconstrues the authenticity. This is merely a representation of a documented moment in time enhanced by blending different exposures. Is it not? Am I missing something? Why is this an issue? What is being captured in this picture is real. Nothing has been superimposed or tweaked. AND, at the end of the day, shouldn’t the focus be on what the photo symbolizes… In fact, I prefer to see a high quality photo versus one that hasn’t been color-enhanced. It is more effective and appealing. Besides, even if a photo was doctored for effect, it would only draw me into the story behind it and leave me to decipher the factual evidence supporting the writer’s piece. However, I am speaking only for myself – there are many impressionable consumers who will lack knowledge on a particular subject and decline to put forth even a minimal effort in fact-finding or research. So the underlying issue of reliable/credible sources of information (or lack thereof) becomes the foundation of this course – educating the masses on critical consumption of this information.

    • Geoffrey Stephens permalink
      January 22, 2012 12:28 am

      I hear what you’re saying, but how does placing a presidential candidate’s head/face onto a random girl with a huge gun in her hands not misconstrue is authenticity? Is that not the ultimate means of superimposing or tweaking something?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: