Sometimes what seems simple and straightforward - like this iron gate on the design workshop at Sagrada de Familia, Barcelona - can become unhinged. It's easy enough to take a fact, twist it a certain angle, polish it this way or that and manipulate it into something else entirely, i.e. the kaleidoscope below.
Please remember that when you're reading or watching the news these days, particularly the stories coming out of Washington, D.C. Rarely have I seen such abysmal excuses for journalism as the mainstream media's second-guess coverage of the first three weeks of the Obama presidency. Seems they expect miracles or at the very least, instant solutions to long-entrenched problems either created or worsened by the previous administration. The doom-and-gloom speculation and posturing is unbelievably pathetic; much of it is false and/or misleading. Meanwhile, the Republicans - all but three - sit back and do nothing but spout nonsense. What are they doing to help solve the country's critical woes? Indeed, one has to wonder why they're even being paid salaries, in light of their complete inertia.
For the record, I don't believe in manipulating photos, unless it's for an art project, poster or special effect, i.e. Shepard Fairey's iconic images of President Obama. The only thing I do to my photos is brighten the color, if needed. Usually cropping an image isn't necessary, as I frame the shot when I snap it.
What's your take on manipulation: press, photo or otherwise? Do tell!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On a happier note, this just in: could Emily and Sophie possibly be any more adorable? My globe-trotting friend and his young Russian partner are lucky, lucky, lucky to have these gorgeous cherubs!
Yes, all you excellent purveyors of baby clothes, diapers, formula, toys, etc., the twins might be available for advertising campaigns. Serious queries only, please. :)
Like you, Christina, I wouldn't manipulate a photo to add extra things and change the image. xoxox
Posted by: Tara Bradford | 17 February 2009 at 16:39
Yes, I don't why it was ever suggested the Republicans could embrace anything faintly reeking of bipartisanship. It's a shame, because the Republicans never used to be so recalcitrant and close-minded.
And the babies! Maybe if certain political figures spent more time around adorable babies, they'd be more willing to make the changes necessary to help our country!
Posted by: Tara Bradford | 17 February 2009 at 16:38
Thank you, Robin, for your helpful insights into photography editing. I agree that our president is able to handle whatever's thrown at him by the opposition. And yes, beautiful babies are a gift to the world! Thanks for the encouraging words about my photography. Am still very much in the learning stages, but I'm having fun! xoxox
Posted by: Tara Bradford | 17 February 2009 at 16:36
Fox "news" is so reckless when it comes to reporting the truth. They don't know the meaning of "objective" reporting. I agree it's very scary that certain people listen only to Fox and let that shape their way of thinking.
Ah, yes, the twins are too cute for words. Merci, Constance. Hope all is well in TX! xoxox
Posted by: Tara Bradford | 17 February 2009 at 16:34
Thank you, Toma! I wrote a little blurb about it today.
Posted by: Tara Bradford | 17 February 2009 at 16:32
Dear Tara,
It worries me what people watch on TV.
Like Fox news for instance.
People listen to venomous talk and believe it.
It's horrible to check in every now and then. It's scary.
Love these cherubs.
Identically cute!!
xox
have a great day friend!
Constance
Posted by: Rochambeau | 17 February 2009 at 16:14
Hi Tara,
Just a quick note to thank you for letting me post your antique shopping "art of the deal" blog as a guest blog on my site!
http://antiquesdiva.blogspot.com/2009/02/guest-blog-paris-parfait-writes-art-of.html
Best Regards,
Toma
Posted by: The Antiques Diva | 17 February 2009 at 08:37
oh dear this is quite a mix of topics. i realize you are referring to photographic manipulation not photographic art. as you know i manipulate many of my photographs. it is often a little like kabuki theater in that the makeup is used to create an added element for dramatic effect even though it is obviously altered. manipulating my photos is completely enjoyable for me and allows me to express myself artistically in ways i am unable to do with traditional mediums. you know all this about me already:)
now as far as the news media is concerned well.. that is forgery and fraud in my view and to be taken very seriously. there is no room for expanding upon the facts unless you are doing an opinion piece and say so. and at this point i am making sure i do not overreact to all the nail biting and furor over what is or is not going to happen next. it is like "give the guy a chance to think for heaven's sake!" but we knew that would happen and he is able to handle it i think.
beauuuutiful babies!! i love seeing this little update their sweet faces!
your photographs are wonderfully close up and personal and i often feel as though i can touch or feel something you are showing us. i love that about your pictures!
XOXOXOX to you dear!
Posted by: Robin Laws | 17 February 2009 at 06:26
I so agree with your comments about the press and the inert, unhelpful ridiculous GOP. This is not the time for small-minded posturing.
On a much happier note - those little girls are adorable! Thanks for sharing :)
xx,
deb
Posted by: JanePoet ~ JP/deb | 17 February 2009 at 04:28
I am not into photo manipulation. I had a photo teacher that wanted me to add clouds and birds to a picture of mine. When it was done, the picture didn't even hold the mood I was intentionally going for. My picture became a lie. I erased the whole thing, it wasn't worth it. : )
Cutie pie, babies!
xxoo
Posted by: Christina | 17 February 2009 at 03:28
I agree, Marilyn - who can resist these cherubs?
I'm not against photo enhancement, to a degree - or showing several versions of the same photo in different colours or looks. It's when photos are deliberately manipulated to the max and the photographer pretends otherwise that rings false.
Posted by: Tara Bradford | 17 February 2009 at 01:28
Helen, thanks so much for your comments (and the compliments - I'm still learning and hope to improve). I also admire the photographers you mention, as well as Diane Arbus. Although I saw a show of her work at the V&A in London and not a single subject in any of her photos was smiling. I wonder if that was deliberate?
About the Republicans: obstructionist, definitely. How do they live with themselves, when the country is falling apart and needs everyone working together to solve the problems??!! They've behaving like a bunch of schoolyard bullies who don't get their way.
Yes, after the relentless spin, looking at the beautiful babies does warm one's heart.
Posted by: Tara Bradford | 17 February 2009 at 01:25
Thanks, Diane, for your very insightful comments. You're so right about the arts. When I was in school, we had art, music and languages. These days, if those subjects are offered at all, they're often electives or private tuition classes. I blame the abolishment or diminishment of these programs for the inane superficial "celebrity-lite" culture that is ruling the airwaves and of course for the previous administration cutting funding for schools and arts and pouring it into unnecessary war. It is a travesty and a disgrace that in the richest nation on earth, our schools are falling way down the charts in education standards. Most other countries are way ahead of us, when it comes to education. It is outrageous that with all the riches America has, only the reasonably wealthy can afford good educations and health care. We must continue to fight for these rights for all. I'm glad you've taken your stand and are using your voice where it counts. Thank you!
Posted by: Tara Bradford | 17 February 2009 at 01:19
Mais oui, bien sur, mon ami! Merci bien! xoxox
Posted by: Tara Bradford | 17 February 2009 at 01:13
I agree, on all counts, Robin. xo
Posted by: Tara Bradford | 17 February 2009 at 01:11
Thanks for the kind words about my photos. I'm still very much near the bottom of a steep learning curve and much of what I achieve is a product of trial and error. I'm not referring to minor editing or enhancement of a photo. (Love that comment from your Sunday school teacher!) This is often necessary and usually positive. I'm talking about photographers taking a photo and adding things to it, i.e. a puff of smoke or something in a news photo, to suggest something happened that didn't. Or some photographers going overboard with manipulations to make the photo "picture perfect," when it's clear the original photo did not naturally have such brilliant colours. Enhance the colour, yes; but give it cosmetic surgery? To me, this goes too far. Just my preference and probably has a lot to do with being a reporter for so long and being obsessed with finding the truth. I don't object if the photographer says something to the effect, "this photo was enhanced 27 ways from Sunday to achieve this look." What annoys me is when they pretend they did nothing and it's so obvious they did.
Posted by: Tara Bradford | 17 February 2009 at 01:10
Judith, I agree it's fun to play with an image and look at it in different ways - that, to me, is art. The manipulation I'm referring to is primarily news or documentary photos that have been manipulated.
On the other hand, some photographers have refined manipulation almost to an art form, making it difficult to tell what's been added to the original photo - even though it's obvious the image is too "perfect" to be intact. I see this more and more online. And that's fine, if it's clear it was done for effect. What annoys me is when photographers manipulate photos, then claim they didn't do anything to them - that they just naturally turned out like that! :)
Posted by: Tara Bradford | 17 February 2009 at 01:03
Susan, thanks for sharing your perspective. I agree with you 100 percent. As for Blackwater/XE, nothing associated with that corporation surprises me.
Emily and Sophie's parents will be thrilled by all the kudos. Thanks for the compliment about the photo, as well.
Posted by: Tara Bradford | 17 February 2009 at 00:57
Colette, my sentiments, exactly. As for the twins, aren't they precious? Yes, hoping for a better world for all the children.
Posted by: Tara Bradford | 17 February 2009 at 00:53
I have a routine, like most of us, that incorporates a few necessities every day.. I watch the news.... CNBC for the financial slant, than a little View, than the morning NY Times mainly for the ARTS section. Today I was very upset with myself after reading the article in the NY Times titled Saving Federal Arts Funds: Selling Culture as an Economic Force by Robin Pagrebin.
Ok, the arts did get $50,000,000 for the National Endowment for the Arts in the final version of the recovery package, but that is just a drop in the bucket.
What is wrong with a country that feels a ballet dancer does not deserve a to have a home?
The orchestra member who plays the music at the performance should not feed his kids?
The usher who works at the theatre where should he live?
The lighting technician who lights the stage, he has to eat?
The newspaper reviewer who attracts people to the performance, they have needs to ? And what about all the joy we feel and the relief from our troubles, when we are being entertained by our favorite performers?
When I was young, and Regan was our President, he had this Trickle Down Economics policy.
Well listen up all you ridiculous lawmakers.... this is the real trickle down.... your rich, why should you give a damn about us.... next time you want to read your child a beautifully illustrated well written book and there it NO neighborhood bookstore to find this in, no new books, no beautiful pictures to look at .... think of what you did. And when you want your lovely child to study ballet and there is not local ballet studio because there is no teacher, no affordable space for that teacher to rent so she could teach, (PS. That effects real estate).... it is your fault.
And by the way ... no performance of the NUTCRACKER to take your children to because YOU decided that giving to the ARTS is just a waste.
Here are some facts for you who doubt the importance of the financial contribution the arts make:
Sundance Film Festival $60,000,000 to Park City Utah
the arts culture contributes 6 Million JOBS
the arts culture contributes $30 Billion in taxes
the arts culture contributes $166 Billion in annual economic impact.
I also must say that I practice what I preach ... I am a grass roots person. Which the lovely Gov. Sara Palin says is a joke. I mentor several students every year in our local high school in art, I teach them, I take them to art classes at colleges that are over 1 hour away. I teach art at different community groups and every week for a free drop in class at our local coffee shop.
So, Sen.Jack Kingston, Rep. of Georgia, who says that art is a "favorite of the left." Start doing a little basic research and stop listening to the likes of the Rush Limbaugh's of the world and think for yourself.
America is SCREAMING do what is right and good, for a change.
So now I am not so upset with myself, because I have taken a stand and will continue to in a very vocal way.
Posted by: Diane Bronstein | 16 February 2009 at 23:08
You are right about the spin. It's enough to make you gag the sheer expectations of immediate change are unrealistic. It took a long time to create the problems, overnight solutions are not the answer.
On the other hand, we all win with TWINS!!! Delightful faces, pretty little angels. xoxo
Posted by: Gillian daSilva | 16 February 2009 at 22:38
The press and the Repubs are ridiculous. It is disappointing at the very least. Photos- well, I have been known to crop or brighten the color if the are a little grey, but that is all. And those babies are so adorable. Those blue eyes- ah gorgeous!
Posted by: My Melange | 16 February 2009 at 21:12
Oh, and the twins are amazingly gorgeous!
Posted by: dutchbaby | 16 February 2009 at 21:08
Your Barcelona images are beautiful. I agree with you about the mainstream media's spin. It takes a lot of time and dedication to search for the truth. I try and to get news from as many sources as possible; I will even watch Fox News once in a while. I thank you for bringing your perspective to this blog.
As for photo manipulation, I respect your photographic skills immensely and I am impressed you don't manipulate your photos. I don't have the skills you do so I do manipulate my photos in Photoshop. I probably overdo it and I will try to show more restraint in the future, but my photos need all the help they can get. I had a gay Sunday school teacher when I was in high school and one of the girls asked him how he felt about make-up. His response was, "If the barn needs painting, paint it!" So I photo-manipulate and I wear often make-up.
Posted by: dutchbaby | 16 February 2009 at 21:07
The twins are beautiful!
As far as changing photos; sometimes I do crop them, but usually I just leave them as they are.
Posted by: marilyn | 16 February 2009 at 19:01
I take thousands of photos per year. I crop and not much else. With digital photography, it is relatively easy to see when photos have been manipulated if you have any experience with photo editing programs. (Step away from that sharpen or reduce noise button!)
My photography heroes are Brassai, Edward Weston, Alfred Stieglitz and Ansel Adams. I admire the work of Cindy Sherman as well. There are many wonderful contemporary photographers on line of course that I view from time to time.
I document--I don't "set up" many photos-- and admire those who are good at lighting and such. I love the documentary style photos you show us here, Tara. It is the next next thing to "being there."
As for the spin factor, it is as if the Republicans never lost. Does the word "obstructionist" ring a bell? Since news is bought and paid for and without any regulation, I don't see how it can improve. As for me, my beloved satellite radio will probably be belly up tomorrow (you can read about this in any search engine) leaving me without those choices, too. Feeling a little dismal about that.
I agree with Susan who posted before me. Very few people are informed. The news on certain networks is often not factual. On the other hand, does the public really care? I am not sure any more.
As for the babies, they are just beautiful. Looking at them is a happy thing!They are truly darling!
Posted by: Helen | 16 February 2009 at 18:43
I agree completely! I've been sickened by the level of so-called reporting for years now. It seems they just go for padding and burbling to fill airtime. It's exhausting, which is why I'm very very selective in what I listen to these days. They all need to grow up! The GOP remind me of the "dog in a manger".
Sweet twins, I wish for them a much better world than the one they've stepped into! xoxo
Posted by: Colette Copeland | 16 February 2009 at 18:15
Tara! Very interesting question about manipulation...especially in light of what has transpired over the past 7+ years in the United States. The tragedy of 9-11, an event which could have galvanized the U.S. to become (or remain) a force for good, instead became a vehicle for the most despicable and corrupt abuses of power. And manipulation played a huge role in allowing this to happen. The citizens, the press, virtually every element of society was "handled" to achieve the goals that the Bush administration saw as its destiny. And it is all so inexorably intertwined...the "faux news" fed to the reporters, the citizens believing what they saw and heard, the call to patriotism, and maybe the worst of all...inciting fear and hatred of anyone who wasn't "like us". But I also believe that people get the government they deserve, so when the majority of citizens are relatively ignorant of world events (or maybe even more importantly world history) and believe they can remain insulated AND isolated from occurances many thousands of miles away, it is a perfect scenario for manipulation to occur and be successful. After living in Turkey for many years and only being in the U.S. for the past 3 years, it is absolutely amazing to me how uninformed people are here concerning global events (certainly not everyone, but a large majority). And while the U.S. certainly has massive problems at the moment on nearly every level, it remains troubling to me that coverage of international news is scarce at best and nonexistant at worst. And as long as this country has a relatively uninformed and narrow-minded vision of the world (and its place in it) I fear it is a recipe for disaster. And you are certainly correct about the news coming out of Washington! "Off to a bad start"?? I think it's been a rather good three weeks or so, considering the past 8 years! It definitely makes you want to hit the "mute" button when they all start talking...especially poor John McCain...but I do have new found respect for Arlen Specter- I'm sure the GOP will try to crucify him come the next election.
Just a quick note about Blackwater... I found it interesting that one of the major supporters and financial backers of Prop 8 in California last November was none other than the mother of Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater. (or Xe or whatever it is) I wonder how many people know this? Connecting all the dots is really a revelation sometimes!
On a happier note, the twins are gorgeous! And the Japanese red bridge is delightful!
Posted by: Susan | 16 February 2009 at 17:52
Alas ... . is it any wonder our world has become a place of endless confusion as to what is "REAL" . All is Spin. Spin makes one dizzy. I try to observe and find a kernel of truth.
Photo manipulations?? I find it fun to play with an image and see how many ways I can see it. I don't find obvious manipulation deceitful ... . it's the fine lines of spin which tend to cause the confusion of reality. .... Jjjjj
Posted by: judith | 16 February 2009 at 17:30
Aren't those girls precious??!!
As for manipulating photos, you have a point about the way we choose to shoot them. But I'm referring to the post-shoot manipulation process. I like the final photo to be as close as possible to the image the eye first glimpsed. To me, a photo is the closest thing we have to recording a moment. If a photo is manipulated further, it may become even more beautiful, but it also becomes a different art form. Guess it's like applying cosmetics to a face as canvas; a little goes a long way and brings out the best features. Too much distorts the image and distracts from the subject.
Posted by: Paris Parfait | 16 February 2009 at 17:23
What gorgeous babies! Look at their clear blue eyes! No spin there.
After overhearing a random conversation on the street last week, I am more and more convinced that most Americans are so used to a dismal outlook of our country and the world, that in a mere three weeks Obama has not entirely fixed our nation's woes (something that took years of neglect and stupidity to create) that they're already writing him off.
As for manipulating photos, adjusting a photo, even if it's something as minor as straightening or cropping, is our way of drawing attention to an image in the way we want other people to see it. In fact, where we position our camera to take the photo supposes the view we want others to have. I suppose the only way to not manipulate a photo is not to take it in the first place.
Posted by: tangobaby | 16 February 2009 at 16:58