Migrant Mother is a photograph taken in 1936 in Nipomo, California, by American photographer Dorothea Lange during her time with the Resettlement Administration (later the Farm Security Administration).
[...]
Migrant Mother was achieved through a process of deliberate and careful intervention by Lange. Although she considered herself a documentary photographer and stuck to the belief that she should not intervene in the subject of her photography, Lange manipulated the framing and the subjects to arrive at her final shot. Furthermore the photo has been retouched after capture: the mother's left thumb was removed from the foreground on the right side of the image as Lange “considered the thumb to be such a glaring defect that she apparently didn’t have a second thought about removing it”.
There's a really good podcast episode that dives into how photography rarely captures reality as it exists, but instead is the expression of the photographer. I came away from it with a greater appreciation of the art of photography, and also a more nuanced view on these kinds of staged photographs.
This photo was staged, but is it not expressing real feelings about the great depression? I get why people get angry when they feel like photographs lie, but I think the right response is the realize that all photographs lie to some extent. The photographer is showing you what they want you to see, framed and focused how they want it, chosen from dozens of similar shots to express the reality that they chose.
I wish I had more time to better explain myself, but I'll drop the podcast link in case anyone wants to listen.
Most iconic historical photographs are staged. Like there's fewer non-staged than there are staged. You kind of have to in order to take a good picture.
I knew that, though I am still by the "she considered herself a documentary photographer and stuck to the belief that she should not intervene in the subject of her photography" claim before that.
The original photo was staged and edited.
There's a really good podcast episode that dives into how photography rarely captures reality as it exists, but instead is the expression of the photographer. I came away from it with a greater appreciation of the art of photography, and also a more nuanced view on these kinds of staged photographs.
This photo was staged, but is it not expressing real feelings about the great depression? I get why people get angry when they feel like photographs lie, but I think the right response is the realize that all photographs lie to some extent. The photographer is showing you what they want you to see, framed and focused how they want it, chosen from dozens of similar shots to express the reality that they chose.
I wish I had more time to better explain myself, but I'll drop the podcast link in case anyone wants to listen.
https://radiolab.org/podcast/308563-truth-cannonballs
Most iconic historical photographs are staged. Like there's fewer non-staged than there are staged. You kind of have to in order to take a good picture.
i think she means as part of the artistic composition, not as a defect of the woman
the photographer here is a woman as well
I knew that, though I am still
by the "she considered herself a documentary photographer and stuck to the belief that she should not intervene in the subject of her photography" claim before that.
It's a fucking thumb. How bad could it be?
When the past and the future come together to make something not quite good as either!