On Sep 26, 2009, at 3:06 PM, John Francis wrote:
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.
Given the caption, the crop obviously presents a different message
than what was originally recorded in the photo. That is fact. And, as
I said, most reputable news organizations won't crop in such a way
that it significantly alters the content of the image.
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".
Yes, it is a boring photo, both before and after the crop. But the
magazine's violation of news photography standards is obvious. And
that's 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.
--
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.
