Well, I guess some people have a hard time telling where to draw the line. To me it is very clear, and not a thin line at all. But then I have the same feeling about photo critiques. Do you tell someone how to mak that photo better? Or do you tell him that he should have made a different photo?
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 10:56 PM Subject: Re: PDN article > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "T Rittenhouse" > Subject: Re: PDN article > > > > And from my point of view he did nothing that changed the meaning of the > > photographs. Getting rid of a distracting background is a long long way > from > > cloning in someone who wasn't there. I think this is all coming about > > because people are now buying digital cameras. Almost all of them come > with > > some kind of digital editing software so people are becoming aware that > > things like this are possible. In the past they kind of thought that a > > photographer had no more control over the content of their pictures that > the > > consumer did over his snapshots. That never was true. > > The problem is that this sort of thing becomes the thin edge of the wedge. > You start by making a little tweak here, a bit of a clone there, and as time > goes on you find yourself routinely making alterations to content. > And suddenly, you are no longer a news photographer but a visual > editorialist, probably still passing your fictionalized images off as news. > You start posing people and calling the image "news", or you take several > images and paste them together to make a "news" picture. > > Perhaps there is no harm in this if it is done innocently, or to make a > picture have more impact without altering the news value (the Brian Walski > image from Iraq that got him fired is a pretty good example of > editorializing that causes no real harm). > > 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? > > If a picture of George Bush fornicating a goat is run in an Arab newspaper, > is > it news or is it editorial? > What if it makes it to the New York Times? > > It's hard enough to believe news photos these days because of the amount of > image massaging that is done with long focal length lenses taking things out > of context and journalists with Stockholm Syndrome passing off their tripe > from the front lines as news without having to add in the question about > whether anything in the picture had a relationship to each other at the > moment the picture was taken. > > Allowing any removal or addition of image details, whether they "matter" to > the image or not makes a mockery out of what is already pretty much a sham. > > > > > To me the line is when you do something that changes the meaning of a > > photograph. Editing for impact is in my mind just part of the photographic > > process. Just a couple of weeks ago you were all trying to get Boris in > > trouble by telling him to clone out that trash can <grin>. > > To stay serious, if Boris was passing the image off as a news photo, then > the cloning out of the garbage can would be wrong, if it is an editorial or > art photo, then that is a different thing completely. > > We have to hold journalists to a very high ethical standard, because they > are often the people who sway public opinion. Either what they choose to > cover, or how they choose to cover it can cause some pretty major events to > happen. > > Would the bombing of Iraq have happened if CNN had mocked the entire concept > of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction? > Would the American public have allowed the war to happen if the news media > had been broadcasting that GWB was bald faced lying to them about his > reasons for wanting to wage a war? > > For myself, I have more respect for the American public than that. I am > pretty sure if they had known that there was a lot of fabrication going on, > and > that their President was being spoon fed a bill of goods to sway him into > doing something, they would have demanded some accountability up front > before they put their son's and daughter's lives on the line. > > We'll never know, though, since the media saw a huge opportunity to make > lots of money and ratings. War is big business for more than the people that > make guns, tanks and uranium tipped shells. It's a huge industry that will > make a lot of money for anyone that can jump on the wagon and go downtown > with it. > > Froth up a story, give it a spin to strike fear into the hearts of the > masses, and boom bang, you suddenly have a nice little war that you can make > tons of money with. > The only losers are the soldiers who get injured or die as part of the > thing, and a bunch of rag headed foreigners who no one over here give a damn > about anyway. > > This is how news works nowadays, and quite frankly, I find it quite > disgusting that the news media wants these things to happen as badly as the > companies that make tanks and bullets, and is willing to manipulate not only > the general public, but the people who make the decisions about who gets to > live, and who gets the shit bombed out of them. > > Sorry for the rant, and it wasn't meant to be an anti anyone diatribe > (except possibly the puss heads at CNN) > > William Robb > > > > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/03
