The principle of this is much more than just semantics. The photographer was present where the photo was made. What to include is the photographer's informed decision based on first hand accounts. An editorial crop will always be second-guessing the photographer's observation, and maybe put their own agenda into the mix at the same time.
As a first-order witness, the photographer is therefore always the best informed on which parts of reality that is relevant to include in the photo. To throw "guilt" back at the photographer like that is BS. Jostein 2009/9/26 Anthony Farr <farranth...@gmail.com>: >>> >> The photographer didn't crop it. The magazine did, and the photographer was >> displeased. >> > > That's a semantic juggle. Unless the view is an immersive 360 degrees > in all planes, the photographer ALWAYS selects the field of view as a > portion of the entire reality. He/she is no more innocent than the > editors who continued the act of cropping that the photographer began. > > regards, Anthony > > "Of what use is lens and light > to those who lack in mind and sight" > (Anon) > > > > 2009/9/27 paul stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net>: >> >> On Sep 26, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Anthony Farr wrote: >> >>> The "uncropped" frame was still a selective view, one that the >>> photographer cropped from the scene as it occurred. We can't be >>> certain that the context of the uncropped picture was faithful to the >>> actual event, so why should we be worried by the editorial crop? >>> >> The photographer didn't crop it. The magazine did, and the photographer was >> displeased. >> >>> It was a boring picture of a bunch of people including Dick Cheney. >>> It became a boring picture of DIck Cheney, who AFAIAC is the only >>> notable person in the scene. Nothing remarkable was happening before >>> the crop, and nothing sinister was falsely implied by the cropping. >> >> Not true. Rather than a picture of a luncheon, it was turned into a picture >> of Cheney carving something that appeared to be bloody. It was clearly >> editorializing. Not surprising, coming from Newsweek, which frequently seems >> to have an agenda. >> >>> There are things in the world to worry about that are genuinely evil, >>> this isn't one of them. >>> >>> regards, Anthony >>> >>> "Of what use is lens and light >>> to those who lack in mind and sight" >>> (Anon) >>> >>> >>> >>> 2009/9/27 Tim Bray <tb...@textuality.com>: >>>> >>>> Is it OK to crop a picture to make an editorial point? The answer's >>>> not obvious. See >>>> >>>> http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/the-ethics-of-photocropping.html >>>> >>>> -T >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>> 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 >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> 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 >> PDML@pdml.net >> 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 > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
