Assigned Readings

     I believe Bailey was just teetering on the edge of being unethical regarding using posts for the Le murder story. Granted, she was accepted as a „Friend“ and kept on the page, but her declining an interview shows that Del Rocco did not want to take part in an interview, and may not want to share her personal information.
     That Bailey did not identify herself outright is not acceptable; just, as when a journalist calls an individual or business, they must identify their affiliation upon introduction, which Bailey failed to do. Messages can be sent along with requests; hers should have stated her reasons for wanting to ‚friend’ the woman. This would clear up any confusion outright as to whether Del Rocco should be aware her posts are being monitored or not. Even if she had agreed to an interview, I believe her Facebook posts are still not ‚part of the deal’ unless they would be accessible to a large enough group of people to be public. (I can’t think of a number off the top of my head, but, perhaps something beyond 600+ friends-- indisputably far above Dunbar’s number.)
     I think an easy litmus test can be applied to Facebook posts to see if they are usable. First, see who can read the posts; is it fully public, part of a large network (schools, businesses over, say, 200 employees, government organizations.) Is it part of a location based network, be it town or state? A good rule of thumb is, could anyone access the information without actually becoming friends (which requires special permission) with the individual or joining a group? If not, then the journalists must identify themselves before gaining acceptance if they wish to use any content they gather.

Truth in Advertising; the 'you' online.

                  As if enough had not already been said on the subject of Photoshop, here is another blog post about image editing. I think the perception among many people is that, outside of commercial contexts, there isn’t a whole lot of airbrushing going on, so who cares?

    I disagree. Photo retouching is so easily accessible today that I think it is much more rampant than people realize. Even bottom-of-the-line computers can handle running image editing software, and the only hurdle is how expensive adobe programs are (something like Photoshop Elements makes it a much more reasonable price.) Programs like GIMP are even free, and can do many of the things Photoshop can.

    What does that mean in day to day life? I have been known to de-acnify myself in photos I’m planning to publish, and anecdotal, I know, but back in community college I had an instructor (for Intro to Journalism, no less!) who told the class that she allows no one to take photos of her unless they agree to send them to her for editing, first. (The social hurdles that creates aside) Are we, as a culture, that obsessed with presenting a perfect ‘image’ online? Is the fact that you’d devote as much time airbrushing on a six-pack than you would going to the gym to obtain one something we should worry about?

    Photo correction has always existed, but it has only in the last decade become so widely available that nearly anyone can do it. Just to illustrate the point, I’m going to photoshop a photo of myself. I’m using my Mac Mini and a copy of CS4 on my home computer (so you see, it is pretty attainable, even if I don’t have Gaylord labs available.) To hammer the point home even further, I’m not going to use my DSLR, but a point and shoot, to prove you don’t even need a nice photo to start with.

 I must make disclaimer here, I worked for about a year at a wedding photographer, so I know my way around retouching images, but, this is no knowledge you wouldn’t gain with dedicated study of a book like ‘Adobe Digital Classroom’ or any other related how-to text. Click for the huge image.

1) Here I am, freshly rolled out of bed, no makeup, still in my pajamas. Aren’t you guys lucky I’m willing to embarrass myself like this FOR SCIENCE!?

2) First thing first, let’s do something about my acne. Most how-to texts suggest the spot repair tool, but I prefer patch for most repairs. Approximate time 3 minutes.

3) This is the point where I would stop, but let’s go a few steps further. Here is a trick I learned at the wedding photographer! Glowing ‘glamour shots’ style skin and hair. Make two new layers, one overlay, the other a copy of your base layer. The overlay layer is used for dodging and burning; the copy is going to be blurred out using Gaussian blur and hit with a contrast boost. Now go in with an eraser to get back the details. Approximate time 3 minutes.

4) Say I felt like shaving off a few pesky pounds for my plentyoffish.com profile (go ahead and look for it. I don’t have one) or, for faces, enhancing lips, eyes, removing double chins, what have you. Photoshop’s ‘liquefy’ tool is designed for just this, and is the basis for many of the previous posts ‘photochops.’ I leave it to eyes and lips. Approximate time 7 minutes.

5) So I forgot to wear makeup-- never fear! I personally don’t think this is ever acceptable (simply because it often looks so fake) but we’ll slap the digital equivalent of blush and mascara on me. Photoshop doesn’t come with an ‘eyelash’ brush, but you can download countless ones from Brusheezy or Deviant art. Approximate time 1 minute.

There you have it. Five steps to look better (or just weirder) on your Facebook profile. Looking at the before and after I can’t help but kind of feel a little like pimply troll. If we can’t even trust photos of our friends on social networking sites, how can we ever accept ourselves, flaws and all? Is editing photos of yourself just an extension of the preening we all do to look more attractive to our fellow humans? How much is too much when it comes to the truth in your digital photos?

Thoughts so far

Writing this blog has been an eye-opening experience for me, in more ways than one. Blogging is a lot of work. Previous semesters have touched on the blogging aspect, but trying to undertake a weekly publication while simultaneously working on other, often unrelated, web media was a bit of a shock to me, though I admit, a needed one. Today’s newsroom is as fragmented and multi-specialized as its readership, and any job in news media production will no doubt involve us wearing a multitude of ‘hats.’ This has fostered in me a greater appreciation for blogging, as before I would visit them, but had little conception of the work and research that goes into writing a post, even if most blogs draw from previously published source material.

I have also learned more about my topic than I previously thought possible. I had no idea the depth and scope of the role of photo editing in the news. I knew it was prevalent in paid communications (namely advertising) contexts, as I’m frequently browsing websites like Photoshop Disasters, and Bad Ad Good Ad. However, I had never really looked into other areas, and I was really surprised by how frequently it is used on government figures.

Via ForeignPolicy Blog

Via National Post

The airbrushing to remove love handles on French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the cleavage on MP Rathika Sitsabaiesan come to mind, as I had never heard, nor could I have imagined why anyone would want to/think they could get away with altering political figures before actually seeing it. Hearing things like ‘Perception is Reality’ thrown around in class and actually seeing it enacted in the media is fascinating. Though I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is a paradigm shift in our society, I think it is something we (both as producers and consumers of media) will need to keep in mind for the future.

The interactivity is an interesting feature, though I admit I didn't get as much out of it as I probably could have. Perhaps my topic isn't that interesting, but I didn't get a whole lot of comments. When I did I tried my best to answer questions and add additional information, but it never resulted in a new post or additional content as I has expected (and hoped) it would.

Comments and interaction are a great tool for bloggers, as it keeps the readers coming back for more, in a sense. If I comment on a blog post, I will return to see if the writer has anything to say about it. Potential drawbacks are, of course, if a bloggers opinion is not like my own, I will, by human nature, distance myself from them and their blog.

The public must be a part of journalism if it is to survive. Comments and commenters generate much needed transparency in the journalism function. In an age with countless choices as to where to get your news, we need reader investment in the source. Newspaper and Broadcast news has been fragmenting for the past decades, and it takes more than being the only game in town to exist any longer in the writhing, bustling US media scene.

Photoshop Phoolishness

Photoshop is a pretty impressive program. It can work technological magic, seamlessly enhancing and altering photos with a few clicks of the mouse. Often judicious edits can be undertaken leaving little to no evidence behind that they were in any way altered in the first place.

Usually.

When wielded by an untrained (or trained but overzealous) hand, the effects can be more disturbing than wonderful. You probably have seen them before, on magazines, cheap DVD covers and mail circular catalogs.  Despite their ubiquity, I still think it is a great idea to seek them out. I personally have the blog Photoshop Disasters in my RSS feed, as I think anyone who works frequently in visual media needs to be reminded, frequently, of what not to do. It also opens up an interesting view in the sociological and psychological subtext of images. Watching a photo editor overshoot can give us a good idea of what the cultural (at least from a selling standpoint) ideal is, as opposed to the 'boring' reality that was originally captured on the camera.

The debacles range from amusing to outright disturbing as limbs are chopped off, cleavage ballooned to insane proportions and the subjects are clumsily dropped into backgrounds with mismatched lighting. The liquefy tool is either the best or worst thing to happen to photo editors, as it seems to be the culprit abused in the majority of 'photochops.'

Via Photoshop Disasters

Models are a very popular target. One of the most famous photochops of recent memory is the Ralph Lauren ad featuring a model looking more skeletal than alluring. Both Photoshop Disasters and The Huffington Post published articles blasting the photo (if you can call it that any longer) and the wholly unrealistic image it was trying to sell (so unrealistic even a size zero model can't achieve it. You may think that it would be impossible to go any farther from reality than that.

Via Huffington Post

As always, we are proven wrong. A rash of Internet citizens decried a case of a full body swap between Demi Moore on the cover of W and Anja Rubik. Although never fully substantiated, it is not the only case. Kimora Simmons was reported to have used a body double in her ad for Baby Phat. Does this say something about our idea of beauty when perfectly good-looking people don't pass muster on the pages of glossy magazines?

Via Jezebel

Whether it has an important sociological component or not, I believe everyone can agree that these 'disasters' are something that the media profession needs to work hard to avoid. How can we do that? Simple. I think the mantra that we need to use when working with any visual media (be it a photo manipulation or a personal website.) should be:

less is more.

The bobble-head model is the photographer's version of the blink text tag. Just because you have the technology to remove an actor's hands and replace them with someone else's (or, say, make the background of you website a repeating, animated American flag pattern with hot pink text) doesn't mean you have to.

Out of Context Images

Via Huffington Post

A photo is supposed to deliver the truth, unmarred by the sometimes-biased nature of language, to the viewer without fear or favor, right? Barring downright photo editing, which we’ve covered, photos can’t have an opinion, as such.

Not always.

With photos, just like with the words that make up language, context is key. So many cues can be pulled from the surrounding landscape (whether it be words or pictures) that the singularity of moment that may be a word or a snapshot is actually a part of a greater whole. To take an image out of context not only ruins the original message, but outs the communicator as biased.

Politicians are very fond of exclaiming that their words were taken out of context by the media (and sometimes they’re right) but do we often think about the images taken out of context?

This is a photo of Sarah Palin on the cover of Newsweek. Shortly after its publication, both the Internet and traditional news outlets exploded in a flurry of discussion. Was the pin-up girl nature of the photo sexist? How could she have agreed to pose/dress/etc in such a way?

Via Mediaite

The answer? Palin claimed the photo was taken out of context, and indeed the photo that was on the Newsweek cover had been taken for an issue of Runners World, where the athletic attire would have been much more appropriate. Newsweek’s motives, whether just ascribing to the belief that sex sells, or as an outright attempt to discredit instantly come into question and undermines their power as a news source.

Via Mediaite

The Republicans can’t have all the fun, though, can they? This image of Barack Obama circulates through various websites, culled from Getty Images and showing the President waving and blocking another man’s face during a photo op. This photo was real, but was taken from one of three shooters attending the event, when countless pictures were taken from the group. To select the one where he happens to be waving is not indicative of the truth of the scenario.

Via LGBTQ Nation

National Organization for Marriage even took theirs with a side of irony, as they stole a photo from a Barack Obama rally to pass off as their own on an anti-gay marriage website New Hampshire for Marriage.

I could go on, but there isn’t a whole lot to say about the individual images themselves. They all boil down to the same premise, really. Not only does the media hurt the individual they are attempting to discredit, but themselves with the same stroke. They may get their spurious ‘point’ across, but at the cost of a trusting audience in the long run. A lie of omission is still a lie, and to withhold information from the public can do nothing but harm a publication’s reputation.

This is not just something that impacts media professionals, but the public, too. Next time you see Michelle Bachmann looking glassy eyed on the cover of Newsweek, think about the subtext that photo editor had in mind when they chose the image.

A little more on Photography

Photography has been around for over 100 years, and it has changed a lot since its inception back in the 1800’s, and even the first true photograph taken by Joseph Niepce in 1826. (Warren) A big part of the (granted, few) photography classes I’ve taken and books I’ve read devote a huge chunk of time and energy to the history of the field.

I think this is truly, very important to appreciating and gaining a true understanding for the visual media and how to produce it, because we see throwbacks to earlier methods even today in this age of point-and-shoot. Let’s take a look at some older photography terms that still survive today, but in a new form.

Dodge/burn – The practice of dodging and burning comes from exposing areas of a photograph selectively to more or less light for a desired effect. 

Sponge? I have no idea.

So when your paper and negative are loaded up in the enlarger you would expose certain areas (burn) and cover others (dodge) to make said areas darker or lighter, respectively. Photoshop, GIMP and many other photo editing tools give photographers a means to digitally darken and lighten specific parts of their photo. Digital means are much more precise, as with film one wouldn’t know if they needed to add more or less time until the photo was fully developed. Films greater tonal curve, however, means much more lightening or darkening can occur before there is any loss of information in your image.

Proofs – Traditionally, a proof is made by cutting the negatives, laying them on top of a sheet of photographic paper and exposing the whole thing. The result is a sheet of tiny images, which can be viewed through a loupe. This is done to help you select which negatives are worthy of printing full size.

Today, the term ‘proof’ can mean a set of unedited images presented to a client in a portrait studio for selection, or it can mean a photographic resume of sorts, often a PDF with selections of the photographers work.

Negative – This is, of course, the crinkly stuff with all the sprocket holes in it you get after you develop an exposed roll of film. Negatives today (they have had numerous different compositions in the past) are gelatin-based sheets, which save the color information in such a way that when light is passed through it, it produces your photo on light sensitive paper.

Seen today in the file type DNG, or Digital Negative File, called such because it stores much more information than a JPEG, so is more like a negative in terms of long term storage and usefulness.

Cross Process, or X-PRO – This is a popular filter in many digital editing programs, such as Photoshop, GIMP and even on Instamatic. 

Photo by Ame Aziere

Originally, however, to cross process meant to develop one type of film in the chemicals used to develop another. The most popular is developing E6 film (used to shoot slides) in the chemicals for C41(this is the type for standard 35mm color film) and usually results in a greenish cast with high contrast when scanned with standard settings.

Airbrush – Based on, you guessed it, loading up an airbrush and painting directly over imperfections. This was very labor intensive, as it had to be done on a per-photo basis, but there are historical photos on which it was employed for propaganda purposes by the soviet government on more than one occasion.

You can see more here: http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Altered_Images#Trotsky.3F_What_Trotsky.3F

Today the term is used to mean a photo heavily and noticeably edited to remove perceived imperfections in the subject.

ISO – This, very simply, is a rating that determines how light-sensitive a roll of film is, to help the photographer be sure to expose it correctly and consistently.

Though traditionally rating numbers varied from country to country, the ASA (American Standard) and DIN (Deutches Industrie) was combined in the mid 80’s resulting in the international standard of ISO. (Warren)

 In digital photography, ISO serves a similar function, making the card more sensitive to light, at the cost of a ‘grainier’ (not actually grains, as in film, but technically image noise) photo.

Slides – These differ from negative film in that they record color the same as the photo would, usually to be viewed through a slide projector. The term ‘slide’ is used in PowerPoint and similar programs to denote pieces of visual information shown in a series for presentation to a group.

Please note, information where cited is coming from ‘Photography: The Concise Guide by Bruce Warren’ which is a great text, and I have kept ensconced at my desk as a reference. The following is by no means an exhaustive list, and if I’ve missed anything, please say so in the comments!