Wells: pp69-74

The part of this reading that struck me was the idea that especially earlier in its history, photography was scrutinized according to its ability to depict reality objectively. The augmentation of elements in within the frame was considered dishonest to the public on behalf of the photographer. 

I think that these are fundamentally unrealistic expectations within the bounds of photography. Cropping alone requires artistic judgement, especially with regards to composition. Even beyond composition, photography's ability to capture reality is limited to what is seen within the frame. Regardless of whether or not the composition has been changed by the photographer in any way, there are still elements that are outside the frame, which were consciously excluded. Therefore, can any photograph really objectively depict reality? I'm not sure! 

There is also the argument that even if the photographer has made changes to what they are photographing, it still at one point in time existed in reality as it is seen in the photograph. So the important thing to realize is that photography has to be analyzed objectively. Whether or not a photograph depicts reality as it naturally occurred or not does not really concern me, but rather the connotative truth that the photographer implies with the photograph.

Haley Taylor