The New York Times spent eight years looking for pics of Bush that
made him look bad. It's standard practice for American newspapers on
both sides of the political divide. Unfortunately.
Paul
On Mar 11, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Gonz wrote:
On 3/10/09, Christian <[email protected]> wrote:
Bob W wrote:
Adding or removing elements breaks the causal relation between the
picture
and the subject and adds an entirely different dimension to
the truth-value of the picture,
What about choosing which elements to include by a simple step to
the left
or right before tripping the shutter?
I can make (former) President Bush look like a total ass
(literally) be
framing his head just right with a background element (as was done
in a
certain image where he appeared to have long donkey-ears due to a
certain
background feature). Or I can make one step to the left and not
include
that element. The inclusion of the element was a conscious decision.
That reminds me of a pic taken of Obama I saw during the election that
someone sent me via email. The angle and exposure were deliberately
chosen to darken his skin and make his ears stand out more, giving him
a monkey like look which probably was intended to influence some
voters.
--
Rhetoric is a poor substitute for action, and we have trusted only to
rhetoric. If we are really to be a great nation, we must not merely
talk; we must act big.
- Theodore Roosevelt
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
