On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 02:49:56PM -0400, paul stenquist wrote: > > On Sep 26, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Anthony Farr wrote: > >>>> >>> 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. >> > The photographer accurately portrayed the event that was taking place in > the room. The magazine cropped it in such a way that its message was > altered. That's not a semantic juggle. It's fact.
No - it's your interpretation. Apparently you seem to think that what Dick Cheney is doing is somehow different when viewed in isolation, rather than when viewed against a background involving other people. Personally I agree with the dismissal of the whole thing as a boring crop of a boring photograph. If you want to see hidden messages in the crop that's your perogative, but it certainly isn't a "fact". -- 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.
