Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

KnudsonRegime t1_j3zcpqy wrote

It does suck. But they could have simply thrown the whole thing away and we’d have nothing.

51

hibearmate t1_j41dxw2 wrote

The job of an editor is to "kill" photo's from a collection

>Most of the negatives Stryker killed, by all accounts, were redundancies nixed in favor of a similar image with stronger composition, clearer focus, and facial expressions better comporting with the themes of suffering and endurance he sought to draw out of the FSA’s subjects.

The "killed" photos provide an interesting alternative view

>Shot through, these unloved alternates have become almost more interesting than their perfect twins. In contrast to the carefully captioned File images, killed negatives have no names attached, often no notes on provenance: what little we know about them is only by analogy to those photos that were saved, clues about location gleaned from landscapes, clothing, faces. As such, the killed photos demand a more active viewer, one willing to piece together, to parse, to consign some things to the realm of the curious and unknowable.

41

AlaskanSamsquanch t1_j42mwzy wrote

That’s how it works in media. You make more than you need and cut out the redundant and subpar. It’s editing and I’m guessing he was just doing his job.

6

ThornsyAgain t1_j47gwsv wrote

Finally an article on the history of photography. Surprisingly little scholarship on this. Let's be clear: an editor isn't supposed to ruin the pictures they don't choose! Seems weird for people on a history sub to be ok with the destruction of historical artifacts.

That said I like the author's examination of said ruined photos through the context of Barth's punctum. Also like her argument that Stryker's editing both subverted America's view of itself, in terms of poverty, but also reinforced it through the absence of POC.

1

Violentfascist t1_j3z569k wrote

What an absolute toad of a man to do this

−5

hibearmate t1_j41e4vn wrote

editor's edit, it's their job

>Most of the negatives Stryker killed, by all accounts, were redundancies nixed in favor of a similar image with stronger composition, clearer focus, and facial expressions better comporting with the themes of suffering and endurance he sought to draw out of the FSA’s subjects.

49

ThornsyAgain t1_j47eaqw wrote

They don't edit by physically ruining the pictures they don't choose. They even say that in the article.

2

hibearmate t1_j47eog8 wrote

I just think people are thinking this was some kind of malicious act to destroy history or something

and not a guy doing a job with an eye towards history, by selecting the photos that best communicated the harshness, emotions, and toll of that moment in history was having in the subjects

1

UpscaleHistory t1_j401tpv wrote

What a shame. In theory, we could train AI to "restore" the missing parts, but the repaired photos will never be as good as the original.

−7

gdv87 t1_j40htce wrote

They will not be as good as the killed photo either

2