Blog Post: Heather Shafer

Throughout the semester many different theories regarding photography have been brought to my attention. Most recently was in the book Image Ethics in the Digital Age. In the chapter regarding advertising photography the authors bring up a point about the encoding and decoding of photographers. While reading this I took a step back and began to look at photography in an almost negative light. I’ve lamented upon the decoding of photos. When I look at an image I know there is a large chance that I am seeing something entirely different than the person next to me. For example, I am enrolled in a Sports Business class and in class our professor displayed an image of Reggie Bush and his one handed catch in the end zone. My classmates clapped with excitement. My friend next to me explained exactly where she was when that catch was made. I, however, sunk in my seat somewhat. My best friend, whom played football for Tulsa, died two years ago. He was supposed to be coming to USC, but at last minute USC pulled out on his scholarship. He ended up contracting a staff infection at Tulsa and died within a week. At times, photographs of USC football send that chill down my spine. I sit and wonder, if he had gone to USC, would he still be alive? This is an example of the ways photos are decoded differently by individuals. We all have a specific history or past which may impact the way we interpret photographs.
The second part has to do with the encoding of photographs. When a photographer takes a picture, he is attempting to portray something specific. This can cause many problems to the credibility of a photograph. We spoke in class about one of the documentaries in which the Appalachian Indians were stating how these men would come in to film them, and that they were searching for a particular aspect of their life. They said that they would be upset if they didn’t see the people living in complete poverty, or in tears. Is this what happens with photographer? Do photographers adjust particular images so that they are able to capture a certain emotion or event in which they believe is occurring? With every photo is there something that is being “encoded?” For the most part, you would assume there is. However, when does this means of encoding crouch upon the ethics of photography. It seems now a days it should almost be necessary that every photograph come with a “disclaimer” or a short write up in which the photographer divulges his intentions for the photograph.
I apologize for the ambiguity of this post. I simply have so many thoughts running around my mind in regards to the encoding and decoding of photographs. I think of each student’s photo project. Every one of us were searching for something in particular, and so many more of us wanted to have “that moment” appear just as we were clicking our cameras. One woman in our class is doing a project on graffiti. For one of her pictures she asked a man (whom was tagging before hand) if he could continue as she snapped images of him. She was looking to encode the image of a human doing the actual work, instead of just the image of him standing by it. He had been doing it previously, however, now it was somewhat scripted. Does this take away from the legitimacy and the actuality of the image? For this instance, I do not think it is a problem. However, what about on a bigger scale? Are photographers creating lab like settings by reproducing once natural acts in order to get it on their camera, to encode what they saw onto their own photograph? And are we, the viewers, the receptors of the images being not only swayed by out act of decoding, but also by what has been encoded into the photograph?

Series Navigation

«Blog Post: Megan BaaskeBlog Post: Justin Iwata»