And a beautiful. well-executed lie can be artful and valuable. Would anyone say that Dali's work was not artful, although it mimiced reality while twisting it to suit the artist's intention? Paul
> Dag is a bit of a master at photographic trickery through the use of > mirrors and the like. > His definition of the truth is, to me, rather suspect, since his lies > happen in front of the lens, but he is able to call his pictures > truthful since they are what the lens saw. > > Obfuscating the truth is still a lie. > > William Robb > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Heim" > Subject: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed? > > > >I can't agree with you. > > I know that pictures have ever been manipulated, people have even > > been > > cut out of images because of political reasons. But does that give > > as a > > carte blanche to manipulate pictures without telling anybody about > > it? > > > > I give you a practical example. A few years ago htere was a > > terroristic > > incident in luxor, egypt, where many people died. There were a lot > > of > > pictures. One of them showed the plaxe and a puddle of blood. So > > thought > > we. In real, it was an ordinary puddle of water, but some guy made > > it > > look a little more redish. > > Some newspaper printed the picture. It was a big scandal. > > > > I would say, in a journalistic environment, that wasn't OK. I think > > you > > would agree. But were is the borderline? > > > > I'm more tolerant, if a picture is declared as "art". If anybody > > can see > > it was manipulated. But, if you shoot a picture for national > > geografic > > magazine - you can't tinker around. > > > > Michael > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Gesendet: Montag, 24. Januar 2005 12:11 > > An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Betreff: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? > > > > > > Answers below: > > > >> fra: "Michael Heim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> Now that we are speaking about "looking away" and "do's & don'ts". > >> Lets get ethical: Should photographers make a declaration when > >> having > >> manipulated (i mean: worked hard in photoshop) a picture? > > > > No. Any photograph is already manipulated, from the moment you > > choose > > what to photograph and how. > > > >> Examples: > >> - adding grain digitally ;-) > >> - putting objects in or taking them out of a picture > >> - changing colours (with digital colour filters) > >> - cutting pimpels out of faces > > > > These are things that were done in the darkroom a hundred years > > ago. > > Photoshop makes no difference. > > > >> Does it make a difference if the photos are for > >> - newspapers > >> - magazines > >> - a photo exhibition? > > > > Only if the tekst say something that isn't true. If a journalist > > or > > artist claims that an altered photograph shows something that is > > true, > > he is telling a lie. The photograph just shows something, it is the > > context that matters. > > > > We should never believe photographs, because they are so easy to > > believe > > in but lie so easily. > > > > DagT > > > > > > > > > >
