From: "William Robb"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Graydon"
Subject: Re: Ethics of Manipulation (was: Re: Perspective control
(was:PESO:Church tower))
I'm not a big believer in the actual existence of a consensus about
reality.
Step out into the street in front of a moving bus.
We'll see if we can reach a consensus about the reality of busses after we
scrape you off the street.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVseBfMq_Dc
I doubt we're going to settle the question here any more than we settled
it during the USPS censored the Bette Davis stamp thread. I doubt we'll
even reach a consensus, but here's my take:
Photo Public Relations
Journalism & Advertising Art
<------------------------------------------------------------------>
There's a continuum of purpose for photographic images. That purpose
matters in so far as the ethics of manipulation. Context is important.
At the PJ end, manipulation of the image is UN-ETHICAL, although most
images will be tweaked to some degree - levels, contrast, curves - to
make up for the deficiencies of the camera or the photographer's nerve.
It makes the image more viewable.
I'm cool with that as long as nothing is removed or added that wasn't in
the original scene.
Photojournalism should be reportage, not editorial comment. The image
should be as "true" as possible to the scene the photojournalist was
attempting to capture.
Somewhere in the middle is PR and Advertising. Those photos are going to
be manipulated to idealize the product being sold, but they should not
convey an outright falsehood ... as cigarette advertising once promoted
the idea smoking was actually good for you; as advertising still
promotes the idea that if you smoke the right brand of cigarettes (or
drink the right brand of beer), you'll have lots of great sex with
multiple beautiful women every night and never ever have to leave the
party for such mundane activities as earning a living.
But, I'm aware that advertising "photographs" don't truly represent
reality. Sometimes it's entertaining; sometimes it's not.
Editorial photography, such as the referenced "Egret in a cesspool wins
the Sierra Club contest" falls somewhere in this area as well. If the
photo was submitted because of the beauty of the bird, the
"manipulation" of cropping out the cesspool is not a problem in my view.
OTOH, if the same photo was submitted for the purpose of deceiving the
judges that the cesspool was not in fact a cesspool, but a viable means
of conserving nature's bounty, it is a problem in my view.
Context and intent matters.
At the other end of the spectrum is Art, where anything goes as far as
I'm concerned. It's your image, do your thing. If I don't like it, I'll
ignore it.
Of course, it's not really a two dimensional straight line, and it's not
so cut and dried as far as what's ethical and what's not.
But the bottom line for me ...
What is the purpose of the image?
Does the manipulation further that purpose without an unnecessary
distortion of "reality"?
Is the photograph deceptive? And, if so, what is the purpose of the
deception?
Entertainment and amusement is one thing. Outright fraud is something
entirely different.
--
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.
