The main differences between press and art photography are their intended purpose and editing techniques or lack thereof. A press photograph is usually a supporting piece of evidence associated and relevant to the document it,s accompanying. It should reinforce the topic and emotion of the article, giving the viewer a unadulterated depiction of the subject. This ultimately restricts the photographer to a certain extent because the only creativity they have is in the actual taking of the picture and aren,t able to edit it. Whereas in art photography the photographer has the freedom of altering and changing the photo in the widest variety of ways. Whether it be Photoshop or other editing software, certain types of equipment and film, or different processing techniques, art photography is anything the photograph can devise. Like the above image of an stingray that was photoshopped to look like a monarch butterfly. By using the natural similiarities of the two creature, the photographer emelished that connection by simulating a creature of fantasy, and a stunning photograph. There are obviously limits to art photography as well, like in the instance of commercialism, and advertisement is limited by the theme, demographic etc, but still allows the creativity to change it into something captivating. An example could be the picture below, of a classic car, which may not of been intended for advertisement, could in fact be turned into an ad, by changing the tones, colors and focus to grab the viewers attention. Literally paint, and body work can be restored , using Photoshop or other editing software, and be presented in mint condition, although if this was used in an actual sale would be unethical.
Press and art photography are similar in that they essentially are the same art form, but with specific guidelines that separate them, mainly concerning press photography. They each focus on capturing a certain emotion, a select image that depicts the story they are trying to tell. Other similarities are that they use the same equipment, a camera,lighting, editing techniques. These are all crucial in taking an exceptional "moment in time" shot, one that could never be duplicated.
Is it ethical and acceptable to alter art photography? In my opinion, there are many defining factors to take into consideration. If it is a personal photograph and the integrity of the subject being captured is maintained, than it is acceptable. Or if certain items need to be edited out the make a more aesthetically pleasing image, and it is again for personal use, than yes I agree. For example the image below of a chef, if she had wanted a personal photograph and wished it to be edited, that is acceptable. But, if this photograph was used in a magazine in an article depicting a chef in thier element, and yet changed the tones of the photo, accenuating the gleam of steel, brightness of the white uniform etc, that would not be ethical, even though those changes seem hamless.
. Also, any photo even a personal one that shows the subject in a demeaning, harmful light, even with consent, is unethical and unacceptable. But, if with consent, I suppose it isn,t infracting any laws or guidelines and is up to their discretion. Also, anytime the photographer-especially with intent to make profit-the subject should give consent and be fairly compensated.
Is it ethical and acceptable to alter press photography? I don,t agree with altering press photography nor do I think it is ethical and acceptable, because the purpose of the press is to provide us with unbiased information. The news broadcast companies are supposed to give us a clear view of the reality of the situation and if the images supporting them are doctrines, who,s to say that the facts haven,t been tampered with as well? Also, just because something may be undesirable, or upsetting to the viewer or photographer, does not give them the right to change reality, no matter the graphic nature or controversy of the issue. The picture below could have been taken from a different angle to disguise the gravity and extensive damage done to the poor women,s face. But, the photographer chose rather to take a side profile shot which shows her disfigurement to it,s fullest extent, magnifying the emotion of the tragedy captured in the moment, was a part of "that" moment. An example of this was photographer Allen Detrich, who while working for the Toledo Blade, edited out the leg of another photographer in a shot of a sports team. Although, this might have been a seemingly innocent alteration, was essentially a lie by omission, because it was used in an edition of the newspaper publication.
