Digital images can't be trusted, says war photographer Don McCullin

sevo said:
I doubt that conclusion. Going by the massive reactions to fake or even propagandistic fake photographs on social media and the contempt the great unwashed on the same media have for written and spoken content in the press, photography (still) has a significantly higher credibility factor than text. Even though the latter never had a reputation for technical authenticity, so that its credibility should not have suffered the same "digital decline".

I tend to agree that mass media are losing credibility, but the reasons are far more complex, and at the core not technology driven.
Click to expand...

Yes, but why do you (we) have to make so many excuses for the ills of our technological "civilisation"? When we are going to live up to the fact that we are applying technologies too rapidly and in the service of meretricious values? The "great unwashed" cannot and will not read unless it is boiled down to a few easy lines. They complain if a text is not digitalised and thereby capable of being manipulating for their own purposes. By the way, the great unwashed are at the university now; the above comments are the sorts of things they write on their course evaluations. We aren't going forward, we are going backward.
 
JP Owens said:
No image can be trusted. We edit the world every time we point the camera and snap the shutter, whether we shoot with film or digital. The goal with photographic honesty isn't to determine if the the image is legitimate, but if the photographer has integrity.
Click to expand...

That's my feeling. McCullin is clearly a superb photojournalist, but it's impossible to ignore the "art narrative." Still images are not truth. "I wanted you to get the feeling that it was cold and lonely," he says, of one photo. That's an aesthetic choice; that's art.

Thanks for posting that
 
traveler_101 said:
Yes, but why do you (we) have to make so many excuses for the ills of our technological "civilisation"? When we are going to live up to the fact that we are applying technologies too rapidly and in the service of meretricious values? The "great unwashed" cannot and will not read unless it is boiled down to a few easy lines. They complain if a text is not digitalised and thereby capable of being manipulating for their own purposes. By the way, the great unwashed are at the university now; the above comments are the sorts of things they write on their course evaluations. We aren't going forward, we are going backward.
Click to expand...

I could not disagree more with any of this. People sre smarter than you think, and technology has helped to accelerate worldwide demand for civil rights. It has enabled the oppressed and disenfranchised to recognize the unfairness of their plight and do something about it. Here in the US it has sped acceptance of same-sex relationships, exposed police brutality against people of color, and made a great deal of knowledge available to people who otherwise wouldn't have been given the opportunity to learn it.
 
mabelsound said:
I could not disagree more with any of this. People sre smarter than you think, and technology has helped to accelerate worldwide demand for civil rights. It has enabled the oppressed and disenfranchised to recognize the unfairness of their plight and do something about it. Here in the US it has sped acceptance of same-sex relationships, exposed police brutality against people of color, and made a great deal of knowledge available to people who otherwise wouldn't have been given the opportunity to learn it.
Click to expand...

Sure sure, yesterday's revolution that now falls apart as the world is unable to deal with the challenges of failing states, disintegrating societies and environmental crisis.
 
JP Owens said:
No image can be trusted. We edit the world every time we point the camera and snap the shutter, whether we shoot with film or digital. The goal with photographic honesty isn't to determine if the the image is legitimate, but if the photographer has integrity.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's the reporter or photographer who is trusted to varying degrees and always with skepticism.

What I love is he is most mad about the colors. Besides the fact we see much of his work in BW, it's interesting. WB issues and overdone HDR do creep into serious reporting frequently.
 
It's all very messy. The World Press Photo have issued guidance for their competition, complete with videos of examples of OK and NOT OK.
Of course Reuters now only want minimally processed OOC jpegs.

McCullin's name certainly seems to be click bait for a slightly re-written press release, written journalism should perhaps have guidance on manipulation!!

http://www.worldpressphoto.org/acti...ification-process/what-counts-as-manipulation

http://petapixel.com/2015/11/18/reuters-issues-a-worldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/
 
A much bigger issue for me is the written word. Masked agenda, narrative, agitprop, spin and 'lies of omission' are the norm; journalism is dead.
 
What does he use for his film photography? The story is very hard to follow so it might be in the article. I'm just curious what he chooses to shoot.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom