Up until digital became really common, even in smaller newspapers, around 2000, wide angle shots were the dominating fad. It seemed like papers couldn't get enough of them in all their distorted glory - in fact, the more distorted they were, the more compliments they seemed to get, regardless of whether they had any actual relevant content (at least in my neck of the woods). Then came digital, which meant many photogs didn't have a real wide-angle any more, and which caused them to have to use - gasp! - real creativity again. The only time I have ever seen a disclaimer was on a sports photo using a zoom effect. I think wide-angle lenses can add interest to a photo, but only if the photo had an actual subject of interest to begin with. I don't like distortion as a sole purpose for a photo, but as cheaper wide-angle-for-digital lenses become more available, I'm afraid we'll see a trend back to that again.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 10:24 AM Subject: Re: PDN article > William Robb wrote: > > > I draw a very clear line between news/ journalism photos and > > editorial/art photos, in much the same way I draw a clear line > > between a news story and a work of fiction. > > In one, it's OK to hedge the truth, in the other it isn't. > > As far as critiquing goes, it has to be done in the context of > > how the photo will be used. If the photo is to be used as a news > > photo, then the thrust of the critique would likely be very different > > from a critique of a fine art photo. > > I think I've got an example of a gray area here, and I'm curious > to hear what other list members might think. > > My wife's the editor of a smallish city/regional morning daily > (approx. 40,000 circulation) and is very much a purist when it > comes to the line between reportorial and feature material. > > Early this year the Sunday New York Times ran a color page 1 > photo of a square in Baghdad, showing a grand mosque Saddam > had had built, with minarets in the shape of AK-47s and Scud > missiles. It kind of a neat shot, taken in the afterglow of > twilight but with the floodlights of the monument already on. > The most interesting thing was that the minarets had a marked > tilt toward the center of the frame -- which, as most photographers > could tell immediately, was the result of a very wide lens tilted > off the perfectly square and level. Overall, a picture-postcard > shot with a kind of ominous backspin. > > As a photographer (sort of), this didn't bother me. I liked > the overall gestalt of the shot. Further, nowadays I think most > readers have become visually sophisticated enough that they'd > realize these things were actually vertical, even though they > might not be able to articulate it if asked. In many discussions > over the months, my wife has been adamant that they should not > have used the photo, or should at least have had some explanation > in the cutline as to why the real-life scene didn't look like the > picture. > > What say you all? > > Regards, > Stephen > >
