Paul, I agree, but then there are two related philosophical question (although the second is related to a very practical one):
1. What do you consider an accurate photography? and 2. What changes to the image are acceptable? A few thoughts aloud about each of these two questions. 1. Strictly speaking - none of the images is exact. (after all, it's a 2D "projection" of 3D objects.) E.g. can distortions from the optics be allowed? Where is a dividing line between allowed and disallowed optical distortions (e.g. bad lens vs. geniune optical effect vs. special effect filters/lenses/...)? Perspective distortion - to what extent it is ok? I can think of some cases where it can produce cartoonish image of a person that can be considered rather offensive by some. 2. I am not neat-picking here. I am just saying that policy of (dis)allowed alterations cannot be absolute; it would always be a subject to an editorial policy. One can think of many examples, but here is a simple one: In some cases a cropping can change the message of the photo. So, my point here is that there is no ABSOLUTE accuracy. All photo images are ultimately done through the eyes of the photographer (and subsequently, retoucher/editor..) Igor Wed, 11 Jan 2006 04:59:55 -0800 Paul Stenquist wrote: I agree. I have no reservations about doing everything I can to make a fine art or "entertainment" photo as nice as possible. But news photography has a responsibility to be accurate. The Times seem to have a very large photo department. And for the most part, they deal with a group of pre-approved contributors, who understand the seriousness of the situation and want to protect their position. When the Times photo editors buy something from outside their circle, they can devote more time and effort to scrutiny. Paul
