As a photographer I've actually had egregious crops of my work to
fulfill an editors agenda. This kind of thing was happening 30 years
ago, it's not new.
AlunFoto wrote:
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 <[email protected]>:
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 <[email protected]>:
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 <[email protected]>:
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
[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.
--
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.
--
The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or
drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn
fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a
free man any more than a dog.
--G. K. Chesterton
--
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.
