Photo Manipulation

Do you agree with the idea that "a (journalistic) photographer should protect the truth and represent it as accurately as possible"? Is there any room for expression or creative license in journalistic photography?

The art of journalistic photography is a complex one, in order to understand it one must understand the goal of professional journalism, which is to inform the public. Now I personally would like a world in which the news media was not deceptive and/or censored however I am a realist, I see that the media is clearly manipulated to support certain viewpoints. The very act of taking a photograph captures one moment of time within a defined space upon a visual record, there is no complete photographic account if you will, there will always be something beyond the lens that is not being pictured yet almost certainly relevant. The idea that taking a photograph and editing it are two separate actions is absurd, there will always be outside, undocumented elements that are not present within the composition. The only method to ensure a photograph maintains its integrity is to be completely and utterly honest about any alterations that are made to the image after the fact, and also to annotate (or in some other way record) the entities outside of the frame that are relevant. A more direct answer to the question at hand however is yes, of course there is space for a photographer to utilize creative freedom in their photography, with regard to the intent of use for the photograph. However journalistic photography is different from most types of photography, this type of photography is by every definition intended to inform people of the truth, unaltered, unedited, no matter how salty or sweet it may be, that is the objective.

Composition Rules

1. Pattern

2. Leaving space

3. Pattern

4. Color

5. Background

6. Rule of odds

Back To School

This image was also lost to my class computer being re-imaged.

Animalia-Photo Compositing

This project was lost due to the files being deleted during the re-imaging of my class computer, measures have been undertaken to ensure this does not occur again.

Inside Me

Is it art?

The answer to the question of "Is X art?" has been a defining point for societies across the span of millennia. The concept of art in more recent times (the late 20th century and on) has seen the array of topics considered to be art explode, why is this though? The answer is that in the later half of the 20th century the general consensus on what art was evolved to any form of self expression, no matter how ordinary or extraordinary a piece of work was it was all considered art. That list of people whose opinion that any form of self expression is considered art can also be extended to include my name, however with one abridgment, the addition of the phrase "within reason" at the end there.