Comments on: Photograph Manipulation http://deconstructinghistory.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/photograph-manipulation/ A Blog for Clio II - I hope I survive!! Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:02:12 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Ken http://deconstructinghistory.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/photograph-manipulation/#comment-16 Ken Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:14:06 +0000 http://deconstructinghistory.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/photograph-manipulation/#comment-16 As Tad says, I think digital historians should be excited about the opportunities to manipulate images and improve their presentation (though I'm not quite sure how the historical record would stand without historians). The comments I made on my blog concerning the need to carefully document the restoration/retouching process is actually more concerned with the historical record we are <em>leaving</em> as much as the one we are studying. Trying to include as much information as possible seems like not only a safeguard against misinformation, but also a helping hand to those who will follow us. As Tad says, I think digital historians should be excited about the opportunities to manipulate images and improve their presentation (though I’m not quite sure how the historical record would stand without historians). The comments I made on my blog concerning the need to carefully document the restoration/retouching process is actually more concerned with the historical record we are leaving as much as the one we are studying. Trying to include as much information as possible seems like not only a safeguard against misinformation, but also a helping hand to those who will follow us.

]]> By: Taking the Leap—Going non-Hosted « Through Hiker http://deconstructinghistory.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/photograph-manipulation/#comment-15 Taking the Leap—Going non-Hosted « Through Hiker Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:21:21 +0000 http://deconstructinghistory.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/photograph-manipulation/#comment-15 [...] to change at will. Steven brought up an excellent point that the photos may be staged, etc…I commented that we need to eliminate as many agendas as possible, starting with the [...] [...] to change at will. Steven brought up an excellent point that the photos may be staged, etc…I commented that we need to eliminate as many agendas as possible, starting with the [...]

]]> By: Tad http://deconstructinghistory.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/photograph-manipulation/#comment-14 Tad Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:40:01 +0000 http://deconstructinghistory.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/photograph-manipulation/#comment-14 I'm not sure why people have so much resistance to the idea of digital retouching of images... to me, it seems like it's not too different from most of the tools in the Historian's toolbox. Historians meddle with History. It's what we do. If we really wanted pristine history, without our fingerprints all over it, we would leave history alone. We wouldn't write about it, order it, create narratives about it, interpret it, collate or compute data... We'd let the historical record stand. We don't do that, though-- and we shouldn't. We SHOULD meddle with history. There's value to that. The argument that images should be presented unretouched, unedited, uncropped, just as they are because doing otherwise "un-historian-like" seems patently ridiculous to me, personally. Imagine someone making the same argument about textual sources: "Historians shouldn't change text! It should appear just as it did in the original, unaltered, unabridged, verbatim! It's antithetical to the role of the historian to do anything but include the full text of a document. Elipses and quotation are anti-historical." It only *seems* reasonable to say such things about images-- because, as you point out, there is this myth that images somehow speak truth... When this is often not the case at all. I’m not sure why people have so much resistance to the idea of digital retouching of images… to me, it seems like it’s not too different from most of the tools in the Historian’s toolbox.

Historians meddle with History. It’s what we do. If we really wanted pristine history, without our fingerprints all over it, we would leave history alone. We wouldn’t write about it, order it, create narratives about it, interpret it, collate or compute data… We’d let the historical record stand.

We don’t do that, though– and we shouldn’t. We SHOULD meddle with history. There’s value to that.

The argument that images should be presented unretouched, unedited, uncropped, just as they are because doing otherwise “un-historian-like” seems patently ridiculous to me, personally. Imagine someone making the same argument about textual sources: “Historians shouldn’t change text! It should appear just as it did in the original, unaltered, unabridged, verbatim! It’s antithetical to the role of the historian to do anything but include the full text of a document. Elipses and quotation are anti-historical.”

It only *seems* reasonable to say such things about images– because, as you point out, there is this myth that images somehow speak truth… When this is often not the case at all.

]]> By: Bill A http://deconstructinghistory.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/photograph-manipulation/#comment-13 Bill A Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:31:37 +0000 http://deconstructinghistory.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/photograph-manipulation/#comment-13 A difference between posed shots with an agenda and the historian's digital manipulation is that it's better to try to look at a photo and consider the content and agenda of the photographer at that time, as opposed to the content, agenda of the photographer, AND agenda of the historian who engineered a new image from an old one. Bill A difference between posed shots with an agenda and the historian’s digital manipulation is that it’s better to try to look at a photo and consider the content and agenda of the photographer at that time, as opposed to the content, agenda of the photographer, AND agenda of the historian who engineered a new image from an old one.

Bill

]]>