While I’ve limited my practices in my work from Antarctica to those adopted by editorial photographers, I’m interested in pushing the envelope to stimulate useful dialog on contemporary practices. Here’s one. These panoramas were stitched together from multiple shots. I think that practice is fine in the context of journalism, as long as it represents what was before the lens. Yet the second panorama here is different. The exposures for this particular panorama were made over the course of several minutes. There was a lot of parallax so the icebergs had different relative positions in the exposures that were merged. Because of this, you can actually see more icebergs that otherwise would have been hidden. This type of composite actually presents the viewer with more information than a single exposure could. Is this appropriate practice? I think it is, if the author and media outlet disclose their practices. I think the news media ought to disclose much more information than they do: who the author is; how the documents were produced; how they were edited and delivered; who delivered them; what context they were placed in and how that shifts our perception of them; what time and financial constraints influenced the production; who the media derives income from; who the media outlet is owned by. We know the media’s not perfect or unbiased. We need to know who the media is. Way too many assumptions are made. We’ve lost our faith. Reclaim our trust. Give us more disclosure. That’s what I’m doing here.

Find out about my exhibit here.

Stay tuned daily for more resources.

Get priority status in my Antarctica 2011 workshop.
Email info@johnpaulcaponigro.com.


  • JP: As long as the image was presented as a piece of art (e.g. within a photo book) and not a photojournalistic piece, multiple views stitched together to create a “hyper-real” or surrealistic image is more than OK in my world. Dali and Picasso would have to agree, don’t you think?

Subscribe

Get the RSS Feed  

Subscribe by Email