Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? >> >>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.
What's interesting is that many news organizations have long had different standards for "hard news" coverage" and "features/entertainment" stories. I'm speaking of writing rather than photography here but I can't imagine why photography should be treated any differently. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
