In reference to how Urlich Keller believes that the OFF photo was taken first and the ON photo second, he says, “The other way around, I don’t know why anyone would do that. I don’t think it’s likely.” But this doesn’t make sense to me. Wouldn’t it make sense to take the balls off the road so you could use it? Luckily, this idea is mentioned later in the article. It’s still striking to me that someone would put so much emphasis on their belief of a particular order when they have no emperical evidence.

So far I like Gordon Baldwin’s argument far more than Keller’s. While both arguments are ultimately speculative, Baldwin’s is actually backed up with assumptions based on writings and president, rather than just a hunch. Where Keller believed that it was obviously staged because it’s obvious, Baldwin thinks it wasn’t staged because Fenton was in a dangerous location, soldiers would often recycle cannon balls (And let’s be honest, recycling cannon balls off a road is easier than going off road and up inclines and such), etc. The one thing I disagree with Baldwin on is that Fenton didn’t believe he was taking a significant photograph when he went to “The Valley of the Shadow of Death.” If you go to a place with a name like that, you expect your experience to be dramatic, even more so if you’re taking a photograph. Baldwin explains that Keller has nothing to go by when he claims that Fenton was a coward, and that the photo proves his cowardice. The letters don’t indicate such, and the photos are (clearly) weak points to argue from, particularly if you can only argue from the perspective of your hunch.

Overall, the article on wehther Fenton’s picture was posed is a little bit ridiculous. At one point Chriss Russ claims that, in order to get the same amount of light exposure, he had to have waited for a cloud to pass over the sun. That just seems so overly speculative it’s laughable. Looking at the shot frame by frame helps, but it should be kept to hard evidence. Is anything moved? Can we see foot prints in one and not the other? That sort of thing. Ultimately, the best evidence that convinced me the most was the idea of Fenton’s intentions. On the one hand, there’s no evidence to explicitely suggest he would have staged a photo in such a dangerous location. On the other hand, the idea of him staging the photo at all doesn’t seem to be a cardinal sin. While the debate of whether or not the photos were staged to some degree is interesting, it’s ultimately futile. We can never know for certain which one was first and which was second. What is clear, and what’s obvious to all who look at the photos, is that Fenton was a compositional master. This talent should be celebrated regardless of if a particular photo was staged or not.

As for the photograph of the 4 missiles, I think that it just shows  you that people are susceptible to visual images. Iran released the photo because they knew that Americans would respond to the power of the image. They also knew that, when the fact it was a fraud came to light, a lot of people wouldn’t see the public apologies for publishing a fraudulant image, and those who do would still be scared by the apparent power of Iran. The truth is that photos are chosen to sell the news. Why didn’t hte major newspapers simply write an article on the missiles? Why did they need a photo? because photo’s convey much more depth-of-meaning.

What can be done about so much apparent fraud? Well the truth is that they’re only fraud in that both pictures either were or could have been doctored/staged. However, both of them convey truth: one shows that Iran’s military prowess is growing, the other proves shows the excess destruction of war. These things are true, and perhaps with an understanding of the circumstances surrounding an image, we can understand and appreciate hte truth ourselves.