That's the problem, isn't it? A photojournalist has to make a photograph that ~looks good~. If it has no impact, it won't be looked at, and it might as well not be taken. If it lacks impact, no editor is going to put it in the paper. If it has great impact, it might even end up on the front page.
So, pj's have to take photos that are informative, accurate, interesting, honest, dramatic. That's a pretty tough (and sometimes incompatible) group of criteria to meet. I guess all I'm saying is that with all the pressure on photogs and editors to grab readers with that front page photo, one can understand the temptation go a bit beyond just an "interesting angle" or point of view, and maybe tweak things a bit after the fact. And, I think it's ~for exactly that reason~ that one must be vigilant, and allow no manipulation of the photo at all, beyond what's currently allowed. Cropping has been accepted (even though it can change a photo immensely - my Sept PUG is an example - once it's out, I'll send you the uncropped version, it's unbelievable). Tilting is right out. Dodge and burn or their digital equivalent seems okay. Putting subjects in or out of a photo (a la Walski) isn't. Maybe these are artificial, but they seem reasonable to me, if for no other reason that they've been around for decades. As for the subject at hand, unfortunately when I went to the link, I couldn't find the article, but if all he did is darken the sky, well, I think what he did was within accepted boundaries. But, it's all pretty subjective, isn't it? cheers, frank Doug Franklin wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 20:56:14 -0600, William Robb wrote: > > > But where do you draw the line? > > Do you draw it at no editorializing? Just a bit? > > And who decides if the content has effectively changed? > > To me, that's the crux of the issue. "Beauty is in the eye of the > beholder", and so is the "meaning" of a photo. Some leave less to the > imagination than others, but photography is always an interprative art. > Who decides what doesn't matter? Who decides what is the meaning of a > photo? The creator or the viewer? Both? > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ -- "Jazz is about capturing the moment" -Herbie Hancock
