Oh, and while on the subject of doctored photos, there is a group of, get this, mathematicians who are creating a software which will determine whether photos are digitally altered or not. No where in this group of people are there any photographers or even visual artists. You know, people who study and make a living off of looking at photographs; who could tell you at a glance if a photo had been manipulated. I guess that doesn’t count! See, what we really need are people who don’t study anything visual: we need people who study computer science; who drive a Harley to work at Dartmouth College; people who don’t play by the rules; people who sometimes brush their teeth after their coffee or go to work on their toilet (I won’t mention what he does on his Harley those mornings…) people like Hany Farid! Yes, Hany Farid who is “better then you” when it comes to editing photos!

Just watch the video.

Oh, and he also sent a snarky response to my professor’s email saying that photographers couldn’t POSSIBLY help in the process of creating software that reveals digital forgeries. At least we didn’t need software to tell that the clouds of smoke in the Lebanon photo were clone-stamped.

But, in all seriousness, was seeing EVER believing? People seem to think that with the advent of digital photography that the trust we’ve put into photography representing reality has been completely obliterated. But photography has never been about representing what is. People have and always will see what they want to, whether it’s in a photographic image or right in front of their face. Reality is always arbitrary.

Calvin & Hobbes by Bill Watterson

Just a quick rant about photoshop. No, photoshop is not a VERB, it is the title of image editing software.

There are about a zillion other programs out there which can do the same things to an image as photoshop.

So why are we still stuck on “that image was photoshopped!” as a way to describe digital manipulation?? It’s very annoying – the photo was ALTERED, just as photographs have always been altered (that’s right: in the darkroom!).

That is all. Oh, and Happy belated Easter!

In the summer of 2009 I took a screen-printing class in which we learned various methods in which to applying ink to paper using a squeegee and screen. Screen-printing/Serigraphy/Silk-screening, is a print-making process, similar in many ways to photography in that you can create multiple copies of the same images. One creates several layers of the image, (usually) applying the colors from light to dark. There are different processes which allow the screen-printer to apply an image to a screen – photo emulsion, screen filler, and drawing fluid being a few – then printing the image by using a squeegee to evenly apply ink to the exposed areas. The use of photo emulsion allows for use of computer graphics or actual photographs in the screen-print.

As is common practice among screen-printers, our teacher recommended using things we found or made as well as to experiment with digitally altering them for use with the photo emulsion. Some techniques include making little marks, brush strokes, drawings, etc and enlarging them to play around with how they appeared. Using photos is also very common. However, many of the students came in with work and openly admitted to using images that were not their own, many of which were found online. Just like using an idea without citing in a paper, this is plagiarism. And while I’m certain that no ill will was intended, I still found the practice to be unethical.

However, screen-printers are hardly the worse proponents of this. There was a scandal on the website deviantart where a girl’s self-portrait was used as the cover for a pornographic video (the story can be found here). On Etsy, there have been countless instances of theft including images of products that are downright stolen by people who setup shop after shop with false listings – this I found out while I was a member of an Etsy group whose members took part in the unofficial policing of Etsy (I have yet to find a blog entry or official news item on this trend, but from personal experience, I saw it a LOT); there are also the instances of people legitimately buying items on Etsy and then reselling them and advertised as their own, such as this story about a person who bought some beads from an artist on Etsy, made a lamp with them, and then sold the lamp passing off everything – including the creation of the beads – as her own (story here). Ebay is infamous for false or stolen photographic images for sale as well.

Sadly, for photography, it is all too simple for people to steal your work. Especially if you’re working in a digital medium. That’s why I think it is so important, especially for artists, to always create original source material for their work! Artists working in mediums such as print-making, design, mixed media, etc. have to use a variety of different methods to create their work. As such, for them, it might not seem so important to take one image off the internet to use with other media. But for photographers, photos aren’t a small aspect of our work, they ARE our work. Even if you don’t intend to sell or show the work, as artists we should be in the habit of creating.

And the fact that stealing is so prevalent among artists in particular is sad. If there was a work that you really wanted to use, it wouldn’t take very much effort to ask the artist for permission. Chances are, they would be delighted to allow you use of the image! But just taking them with no word or credit to the artist, regardless of your intention, is just wrong and unfair. People in general should become better versed with the rules and laws of copyright, but for artists to be ignorant of them is really unacceptable.

This is an essay I wrote in my first year of college about my first experiences with photography. For those interested in a bit of my past and how I got started in photography!

When I finally settled into what became my graduating high school, classes were not my first concern. Half my high school career was spent trying to find a school I was merely content with; my attentions were not in determining what, exactly, it was I wanted to do with my life. Just finding a school, transferring in and trying to fit in was enough to occupy my mind during the first few months of junior year. Classes had been selected for me which, in high school, is not unusual. My schedule included all required classes that I would need to graduate. Among them, my second and final art credit requirement had been fulfilled: I was to take photography.

My photography classes went much like my other courses; I was attempting to get to know my peers and get a feel for each of my teachers and what I should expect of them and their classes. My photography teacher, Mr. Holmes, paid no real attention to me. I was the quiet kid in class and he was one of those energetic teachers who are fueled by matching energy and constant feedback from their students in the hope of instilling their same passion for a subject. For Mr. Holmes, this was subject was art.

Before lessons involving the use of a darkroom, our first assignment was to take a series of Polaroid pictures capturing three nouns: motion, abundance, and the third was anything of our choosing. When we later brought these three pictures to class, the plan was to display and discuss them. When our assignment was due, Mr. Holmes told us to tape our polaroids up on the wall for display. He also told us that we would, finally, be learning how to develop a photo in the darkroom right before we reviewed the polaroids of our first assignment.

The class filed into our tiny school darkroom, arranging themselves graciously in terms of height so that all would be able to observe the procedure. Mr. Holmes explained the process of projecting a tiny image from a negative onto a light sensitive piece of paper. The blacker parts of the negative will be lighter, and the whiter parts darker because of how much light exposes the paper. The developer is a chemical which then reacts to the parts of the paper that have met with light. These chemicals are almost like tiny particles that stick to the paper in shades of black and gray. I will always remember the first time I witnessed the gradual fade-in of an image on photographic paper steeped in developer. It is a sight to be seen, especially if, like me, you had no idea of how a photograph came to be, well, a photograph! After a couple of minutes in the developer, the developing process must be stopped so that the desired contrast will remain without further darkening. The stop bath is quick, it only takes about thirty seconds to stop the developing process, after which the photo must be “fixed” and made light safe in a chemical rightfully called fixer. After a brief dip in the fixer remover and a final water rinse to remove any left over chemicals, the photo is ready to dry and display.

After the first time I saw the production of an image in the darkroom, things changed rapidly for me in the field of photography. Once he had briefly gone through directions in creating our own photographic images in the darkroom, Mr. Holmes had each student share their polaroids. We each took the time to comment on our own pieces and on others. At the end of class, Mr. Holmes asked me to stay after class for a moment. He told me that my polaroids were exceptional and that he was looking forward to see what else I produced that year in his class. I was surprised, needless to say, but proud nonetheless. Since that class, I have produced many photographs and gone over and over again the developing process in attempts to perfect the technicalities of photography. I now understand and practice photography as an art form, and hope it always remains a major part of my life.