Press Photography vs. Art Photography

Differences: The main differences between press photography and art photography is that with the press the pictures are taken right when an event happens whether is it a tragic event of a damn going through a bridge or a happy moment where President Obama is shaking hands with the public. Art photography is edited while being taken; meaning if the photograph is being taken of a ballerina then the photographer can direct her to the different types of poses he wants to take of her.

Similarities: With art photography you can edit the photographs the way the background looks, the way the object or person is facing or the type of expression they have, and with press photography the similarity is that the author can edit their photos if they wish. It is much better to look at a press photograph and see the real picture and the meaning behind the story, but photographers may wish to edit the lighting to the photo or substitute another technique to changing a photograph to grab the audiences’ attention. The main similarity is that both art photographs and press can be edited.

Mike White        http://darkins.net/photografy-art.html

Tim Irving            http://papercrave.com/new-sponsor-art-photography-by-tim-irving/

By Joseph Weber
23802/http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/6/obama-50b-for-transit/

Tajuddin              http://www.bigpicture.in/collection-of-best-press-photographs-2010-part-2/

I don’t think press photographs should be altered because it won’t be the real picture that was taken at the time, it will be just another picture that was edited to be called your own photograph. As much as the picture may be crucial to the public they deserve to see the truth behind the photograph including the actual photograph. As well, I think art photography should be altered because the photographer is the one creating an art image and if it is theirs then they should be able to edit the picture however they want.