Both of these images were taken in a pre-digital ere this means they are authentic and legitimate and there is no chance of manipulation unlike in the post- digital ere we live in today. “The invention of digital photography forever shattered the medium’s hold on truth,” (Sarah Greenough 2016) This point can be strongly agreed with as images can be manipulated so easily today and people question a lot of documentary photography and photojournalism as manipulation can be used to sway public and individual opinions. Documentary photography was originally made to make an impact on the public it was a way to show awareness of subjects such as war, poverty and famine it was a way to educate the world it focused on making raw and real image instead of creating a image that is pleasing to the eye it focuses more on speaking words however it has no expanded to documenting everyday life and doesn't necessarily have to be to create an impact.
The focus within these two images were war one is showing emotions of fear the other one is showing emotions of happiness as this was taken at the end of the war which show complete opposite. War photography is a very strong way to get emotions across it was also a really good way to educate people as photographers were thrown into real life situation to create images of impact to share with the world and create psychical pieces of evidence of history. "Granted, documentary photography does not always depict loss and despair. Realism, context, and timing are key roles that documentary photographers must always consider." (learnmyshot) i feel this can be strongly agreed with i feel realism is the strongest factor in documentary photography as it is used as facts and evidence if its not real then it's not documentary photography, timing is also important as for some documentary photography you need to be in the right place at the right time, this point shows that you don't need to show loss or despair to create strong images that cause impact which is the approach Don Mccullin took.
Here is an image taken by Don Mccullin of a shell shocked solider that was taken during the battle for the city of Hue in 1968. This image shows the impact of war without having to show any violence. Yet it still has that massive impact to the viewer.It also speaks words in this way. The message behind the image is that war is a serious issue and it's a subject that should be spoke about however you do not have to show violence and the real hard truth to get the message across. I feel this is taken for granted as in present day a lot of war photography contains a lot of violence with in and that the media feels that violence is the only way to educate people on the situation. The media use the "shock factor" to educate people as this is easier to sway public opinion even though what you're are seeing might now be true.The image is composed perfectly as it fills the frame really well, there is a really good use of depth of field within the image as the background is out of focus it almost creates a haze around where the solider is sat, which may relate to almost how the solider is feeling because is so terrified. The way the solider is looking into the camera adds so such more emotion as there is almost a glint of hope within the eyes.This solider does look genuinely terrified and its all within the eyes. Don Mccullin states "photography had been “hijacked” because “the digital cameras are extraordinary. I have a dark room and I still process film but digital photography can be a totally lying kind of experience, you can move anything you want … the whole thing can’t be trusted really.”(the Guardian 2015) This point does back up the point that film photography was more trust worthy when it comes to viewing them as it a very strong opinion as Don Mccullin does prefer shooting in film as it makes the images more authentic and in his opinion is a lot more honest. 
This photo is taken in Time Square New York on V-day,it shows a American sailor kissing a woman in a white dress. This piece was printed a week later in Life magazine. This was taken moments after the announcement that the war with japan was over. This was an extremely joyous moment for the Americans that created spontaneous moments such as this one. This moment created emotions of happiness and relief. These two people are complete strangers which i feel makes the image even more iconic. The fact that happiness spread so quickly and everyone felt the same emotion at the same time. I really like the way this image is shot as it has perspective within it, i looks at using lines and rules of thirds to bring the viewer in, i find that this wasn't done unintentionally makes it even more eye catching. This picture created a physical memory,a piece of evidence. I feel this image does show that happiness is contagious and that by all the others watching it shows it is important to share moments and create memories. "We never spoke a word,” he said. “Afterward, I just went on the subway across the street and went to Brooklyn." Glenn Mcduffie The independent 2014) This point makes the image even more special and unique as these two people never conversed in conversation and it shows it was a real spare of the moment thing,a spontaneous moment shared between two complete strangers however it has now been made into almost an artifact.In contrast with each other both these images show two completely different emotions that are seen as opposites,However they are both shown in a extreme form and the emotions in each image is clear. One is shown within the face and eyes as it is a portrait this focuses on shock and fear. Don Mccullin has chose to focus on one subject and his work is a lot more intimate and he appears to connect with the subject more, He shoots from a very personal angle. Where as Alfred Eisenstaedt has chosen a intimate moment but has chose to shoot it from a point of view,his moment is shared with other people around him but there is still that element of intimacy, yet his is psychical in the contrast to Don McCullin who portrays it within the way the image is shot., Don McCullin used his work to educate people as he wanted the world to know just how awful the war was, yet the other is showing a moment for memory.Both images had a massive impact on the world.By both the images being film this means they are legitimate images and that they have no way been tampered with and i feel this makes them even more unique. As the two image are the subject of war i feel these are two completely different. Both the photographers have made history as now they have a psychical piece of the memory. I think one of the best things about documentary photography is that it is a reliable source for evidence and it allows us to document our lives and things we see everyday. The images also have lots of similarities as they're both set around the subject. The tonal range within both images is similar as the white is very bright and there is a lot of grey within the image. Both images are sharply in focus, They both show intimacy and share emotions within the image.
In conclusion both images are iconic and they are both extremely strong images and both have a massive impact just like the war did on the world. War was a massive subject that people needed to be educated on so these images are extremely important as they were both published in newspapers for the world to see. Both take a different approach yet are equally effective. Documentary photo allows us to record history however it is a lot harder since photography became digital as it is so easy to manipulate images these days. I do feel the Don Mccullins work was more successful out of the two images as it educated people his work was shocking but in a way that didn't show violence in any way, all his work has a theme which is he seems to focus on getting a glint within the eyes i feel this brings the view in and makes them feel the emotion he focuses more on emotion than anything else and that's what i really like about his work,His work feels a lot more personal, they are also extremely strong images. However Alfred Eisenstaedt work was still really successful just in its own way as it focused on sharing memories together and it looks at happiness and sharing happiness it doesn't make as much as of a impact however it is in a completely different context.
bibliography
“The invention of digital photography forever shattered the medium’s hold on truth,”
(https://collectordaily.com/rethinking-photographic-truth-in-the-digital-age/)
"Granted, documentary photography does not always depict loss and despair. Realism, context, and timing are key roles that documentary photographers must always consider."
http://learnmyshot.com/why-documentary-photography-is-important/
"photography had been “hijacked” because “the digital cameras are extraordinary. I have a dark room and I still process film but digital photography can be a totally lying kind of experience, you can move anything you want … the whole thing can’t be trusted really.”
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/nov/27/don-mccullin-war-photographer-digital-images
"We never spoke a word,” he said. “Afterward, I just went on the subway across the street and went to Brooklyn."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/glenn-mcduffie-wartime-sailor-who-claimed-to-be-the-man-in-alfred-eisenstaedt-s-famous-times-square-9199854.html
No comments:
Post a Comment