>> > 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? > >In the case of journalistic photography (news photos), there should be as >little as possible left for interpretation. >Photojournalism, or really, journalism of any kind, should be information >first and foremost.
Agreed. I think you will find that the vast majority of news organisations uphold very stringent regards for images (both moving and still) in that they will be manipulated in the least amount possible to ensure they remain a true record of the scene. By this, I mean only technical alterations to (say) colour, contrast etc. This is once the images are within the news organisation. Before they enter that organisation, they are subject to the wishes of the photographer, and anyone else's hands they pass through. You pays your money, you takes your choice. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
