True, there are no absolutes. But for news photography, alterations
should be restricted to those that make the photo reproduce well:
curves adjustments, BW conversion, etc. No cloning should be allowed
and no modification of details to produce a different look. In this
case, the eyes were obviously altered to change the look of the photo.
I can't say for certain, but I believe the Times wold rule out
perspective control as well. But they probably wouldn't buy a photo
that was so distorted that it failed to communicate correctly. As far
as I'm concerned, any alterations the photographer wishes to make are
okay for fine art photography. For commercial photography, any
alterations the lawyers will allow (which do not include drastically
changing the appearance of a product) are okay. But the news is the
news. It must strive to be accurate.
Paul
On Jan 13, 2006, at 12:44 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote:
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
