On 6/4/05, DagT, discombobulated, unleashed: >So the photographer never adds anything personal, no subjective choice, >no point of view? I don�t believe you.
I'm sorry, but I did not write that. This is what I wrote: > The honest and noble photojournalist doesn't tell you anything. He or > she > presents their work to be published by a news organisation. It is up to > the integrity and honesty of that news organisation to be questioned, > if > necessary. When I write "The honest and noble photojournalist doesn't tell you anything." I mean - he or she does not tell you anything, because they are not present while you are viewing the picture. They do not tell you anything as in they are not there to speak to you and say 'Don't worry mate, this picture is not altered in any way' (in response to your original question: >>> So, if this honest and noble photojournalist tells you that the >>> pictures >>> shows the truth as he understood it, does it matter if the picture is >>> altered? which was in an earlier post). The photographer cannot be there to tell you anything. It's up to you as the viewer to interpret the image and see what you will, I'm only referring to the informational integrity of the pic now, nothing else. I further went onto write: > The profession is dedicated to providing visual actuality for > reproduction. It would be very easy for any link in that chain to be > corrupted and misrepresent the facts as they were witnessed. In my > experience, this would be a very rare occurrence, and the result would > be > a disgraced and unemployable individual. Most people working in news > pride themselves in their work (I do) and strive to excel in being the > first and the best. Reputations stand or fall on this, and any hint of > tampering with the truth would invite the most serious of consequences > in > terms of credibility and commercial viability. > > Look at the paps - how easy would it be to superimpose a library shot > of > a semi-naked actress on a few different beach scenes? Yet the paps are > out there stalking their prey (much as I personally disagree with such > activity) in new and different situations. Even the lowest of the low > have standards! ...which to me does not in any way seem remotely similar to what you now ascribe: >So the photographer never adds anything personal, no subjective choice, >no point of view? I don�t believe you Of course the photographer can slant a picture with any spin he or she likes. Most do, and with varying degrees of tilt - pro-this, neutral, pro-that. Like I wrote, it's the publisher who determines which picture is used, which slant is prescribed, which 'angle' is published. Finally, you write: >I still ask if we should stop >believing the honest photographer when he changes the picture without >removing it from his interpretation of the truth. I'm sorry but I don't understand the statement. best, > I still ask if we should stop >believing the honest photographer when he changes the picture without >removing it from his interpretation of the truth. > >Of course the news organization plays a similar part and the same >question applies to them. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
