Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [genphoto] News

Expand Messages
  • Dwight or Helen Farringer
    I have looked up and read the article by Pedro Meyer. For anyone who has not yet done so, the picture which is displayed shows a father-and-son picture taken
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 30, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      I have looked up and read the article by Pedro Meyer. For anyone who has not
      yet done so, the picture which is displayed shows a father-and-son picture
      taken in 1940, merged with another father-and-son picture taken 60 years later
      in an identical pose - the son in the first picture being the father in the
      second picture. There is then a lengthy discourse about psychology, "cosmic
      confusion", "revisiting the image of loved ones that have passed away",
      "blending the past with the present", compression of time, etc.

      Much of this is interesting speculation, BUT - in my humble opinion, the
      actual merging of the two pictures, skillfully and seamlessly done, is
      dangerously close to crossing the line into fakery. For purposes of family
      history, we have a right to assume that a photograph is a true view of a
      particular moment in history - which this picture is not. It seems to me that
      nothing of the psychological and philosophical aspects of the article's
      discussion would be lost by displaying the two separate pictures side-by-side,
      clearly labeled to identify them. All of the cuteness and meaningfulness of
      the similarities of the pictures would still be evident, and all of the
      aspects of "blending the past with the present", "revisiting the image of
      loved ones that have passed away", etc. could be discussed without the baggage
      of defending the computer technique that was used.

      Many of us have had the experience of just happening onto pairs of family
      history pictures which side-by-side show interesting juxtapositions of
      separate events - e.g. similarly composed pictures of different generations
      (as in Meyer's case), of families of different siblings, of different phases
      of a person's life, of different places of residence, of different pairs of
      life experiences, etc. All of these can evoke meaningful revisiting,
      blending, comparing, and analyzing of family experiences - without any need to
      concoct a physically merged picture.

      --- Just my opinion. Dwight Farringer

      ***********************************************************

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Steve Knoblock" <knoblock@...>
      To: <genphoto@...>
      Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 12:25 PM
      Subject: [genphoto] News


      > There's an interesting article on the family album in the digital age on
      > ZoneZero:
      >
      > http://zonezero.com/editorial/editorial.html
      >
      > It introduces some ideas about family photos in the digital age that lead
      > to disturbing and intriguing possibilities. The possibility of fakery in
      > family photos is something for family photo historians to be concerned
      > about, yet here is an interesting example of making an endearing statement
      > about family through digital manipulation.
      >
      > Steve
      > Steve Knoblock popular history
      > editor@... of photography
      > www.city-gallery.com and genealogy
      > www.phphelp.com
      >
    • Steve Knoblock
      For purposes of family history, we have a right to assume that a photograph is a true view of a particular moment in history That s a provocative view. I
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 30, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        "For purposes of family history, we have a right to assume that a
        photograph is a true view of a
        particular moment in history"

        That's a provocative view. I think family historians have an expectation
        that a photograph truly represents their ancestor, in their time. Whether
        they have a right to that expectation is another question. Perhaps the
        question should not be framed in terms of our descendent's rights. Rights
        are protections from something, protection from certain powers of
        government, for example. This sounds like an entitlement to me. The
        question is what responsibility do we have to future generations?

        It will be interesting when digital photography has completely supplanted
        analog photography. When the only permanent and unchangeable images of the
        past are the daguerreotypes, ambrotypes, tintypes, albumen and gelatin
        prints, snapshots, Polaroids and all the types making up the bulk of
        photographs. We may come to greatly value the family photographs of the
        nineteenth and twentieth centuries, as an invaluable and unadulterated
        record of what people really looked like.

        Have photographs ever been true?

        Cutting people out of pictures is nothing new. The ex-wife, the old
        boyfriend, the politician fallen out of favor, have all been conveniently
        edited out of photographs. This is usually detectable when dealing with
        altering a physical image, but often may not be in digital photographs.
        Even if you could examine an image for places in the data where a cloning
        tool might have been used, if the image is relatively low resolution or the
        manipulation masked by JPEG compression artifacts, it might become
        impossible to be conclusive about an image. And that would be a problem if
        that is the only image available.

        Steve
        Steve Knoblock popular history
        editor@... of photography
        www.city-gallery.com and genealogy
        www.phphelp.com
      • Mary Lee Moeny
        Upon reflection I find myself agreeing with Mr. Farringer. At first I looked at the photo and article and thought, How clever! However, then, I had to ask,
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 30, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Upon reflection I find myself agreeing with Mr. Farringer. At first I looked at the photo and article and thought, "How clever!"

          However, then, I had to ask, "What was the purpose?" It was not to represent reality.
          Deception can come in many forms, whether it is placing yourself in a photograph, with yourself and your father---or placing ignitors in a gas tank so it explodes on impact (as one done in a celebrated lawsuit by a car manufacturer recently).

          We are becoming accustomed to seeing what is not or cannot be in print before our eyes - our movie culture already does that. If we want our photographs to represent our lives for future generations, it is important to remain clear and unambiguous about what really "is".

          Mary Lee
          --

          On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:09:07 Dwight or Helen Farringer wrote:
          >I have looked up and read the article by Pedro Meyer. For anyone who has not
          >yet done so, the picture which is displayed shows a father-and-son picture
          >taken in 1940, merged with another father-and-son picture taken 60 years later
          >in an identical pose - the son in the first picture being the father in the
          >second picture. There is then a lengthy discourse about psychology, "cosmic
          >confusion", "revisiting the image of loved ones that have passed away",
          >"blending the past with the present", compression of time, etc.
          >
          >Much of this is interesting speculation, BUT - in my humble opinion, the
          >actual merging of the two pictures, skillfully and seamlessly done, is
          >dangerously close to crossing the line into fakery. For purposes of family
          >history, we have a right to assume that a photograph is a true view of a
          >particular moment in history - which this picture is not. It seems to me that
          >nothing of the psychological and philosophical aspects of the article's
          >discussion would be lost by displaying the two separate pictures side-by-side,
          >clearly labeled to identify them. All of the cuteness and meaningfulness of
          >the similarities of the pictures would still be evident, and all of the
          >aspects of "blending the past with the present", "revisiting the image of
          >loved ones that have passed away", etc. could be discussed without the baggage
          >of defending the computer technique that was used.
          >
          >Many of us have had the experience of just happening onto pairs of family
          >history pictures which side-by-side show interesting juxtapositions of
          >separate events - e.g. similarly composed pictures of different generations
          >(as in Meyer's case), of families of different siblings, of different phases
          >of a person's life, of different places of residence, of different pairs of
          >life experiences, etc. All of these can evoke meaningful revisiting,
          >blending, comparing, and analyzing of family experiences - without any need to
          >concoct a physically merged picture.
          >
          >--- Just my opinion. Dwight Farringer
          >
          >***********************************************************
          >
          >----- Original Message -----
          >From: "Steve Knoblock" <knoblock@...>
          >To: <genphoto@...>
          >Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 12:25 PM
          >Subject: [genphoto] News
          >
          >
          >> There's an interesting article on the family album in the digital age on
          >> ZoneZero:
          >>
          >> http://zonezero.com/editorial/editorial.html
          >>
          >> It introduces some ideas about family photos in the digital age that lead
          >> to disturbing and intriguing possibilities. The possibility of fakery in
          >> family photos is something for family photo historians to be concerned
          >> about, yet here is an interesting example of making an endearing statement
          >> about family through digital manipulation.
          >>
          >> Steve
          >> Steve Knoblock popular history
          >> editor@... of photography
          >> www.city-gallery.com and genealogy
          >> www.phphelp.com
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          >------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and find your ancestors now.
          >Search over 550 million names and trace your family tree today. Click here:
          >http://click.egroups.com/1/5528/7/_/190401/_/962378066/
          >------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >
          >To Post a message, send it to: genphoto@...
          >
          >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: genphoto-unsubscribe@...
          >
          >list admin: knoblock@... City Gallery: http://www.city-gallery.com/
          >
          >


          CCNmail for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.ccnmail.com
        • wilburd@webtv.net
          In the photo of 4 persons which is actually only 3 people, I think the submitter is trying to tell us who have the ability, not to mess around with any of
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 30, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            In the photo of 4 persons which is actually only 3 people, I think the
            submitter is trying to tell us who have the ability, not to mess around
            with any of our family photos in this manner. Because what is going to
            happen down the road in 40 or 50 yrs when someone tries to ID some of
            these doctored photos.

            Wilbur D. Russell
            1015 South 4th
            Leavenworth Ks.66048-3410
            Pho 913/651-5662 QUE SERA SERA
            http://community.webtv.net/wilburd/SLLUGseniorLansing
          • jbrown1002@aol.com
            Dwight: Right on! Cheers, John B. Brown
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 30, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Dwight:

              Right on!

              Cheers,

              John B. Brown
            • MScheffler
              I have a beautiful family picture about 16 x 20 in size of elderly aunts, now deceased taken about 1910 by a professional photographer. Two of the children
              Message 6 of 8 , Jun 30, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                I have a beautiful family picture about 16 x 20" in size of elderly
                aunts, now deceased taken about 1910 by a professional photographer.
                Two of the children were alive at the time -- the other had died, but
                her pictures was combined with the others into one large photo. Had not
                one of the aunts told me this, I would be none the wiser.

                Margaret Scheffler
              • MScheffler
                I agree with E. Rodier. That was the point of an earlier message I sent where a dead child s photograph was inserted with that of two living children (photo
                Message 7 of 8 , Jul 1, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  I agree with E. Rodier. That was the point of an earlier message I
                  sent where a dead child's photograph was inserted with that of two
                  living children (photo about 90 years ago). I see no problem with the
                  family having done this, and I was pleased to have been given the
                  beautiful photo which hangs on my wall. However, it does illustrate
                  that because we see several people together in a photograph, that they
                  were not necessarily sitting in front of the camera at the same time.

                  Margaret Scheffler

                  "E.Rodier" wrote:
                  >
                  > Pre digital photography is not necessarily reliable. A television show and also a web site reported that photographers moved bodies or posed living people for Civil War photos. Some photographers used props and costumes in various time periods.
                  >
                  > > Future genealogists, however, may classify pictorial evidence in one of two categories; either from the pre digital era and therefore reliable, or from the digital era and therefore somewhat suspect.
                • Diana K
                  If I may add a bit to the writing of names on backs of photos. I have been doing memory albums for sometime now and with many of the articles written
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jul 1, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    If I may add a bit to the writing of names on backs of
                    photos. I have been doing memory albums for sometime
                    now and with many of the articles written becareful
                    with what is also stuck to the back of your photos.
                    Many adhesives can cause damage as well to photos.
                    Check your products to make sure they are archival
                    safe first. Also there are pens made for writting on
                    the back of photos sold in many craft and now
                    scrapbook stores. They pens are archival safe and will
                    not harm the photos when written on the back of them.
                    Hope I didn't but in.. thanks.

                    =====
                    Diana
                    SURNAMES: ROSCOE, JUSTICE, BRIGMAN, TUNSTALL NC/SC,
                    BAYNE, SNYDER, LAWHORN,Rockbridge Co.,VA WOOD,PILLOW,VA
                    My piece of the web: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Woods/4360/

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
                    http://invites.yahoo.com/
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.