> > Next, will photogs be castigated when it's discovered that their > cameras > > have done hot pixel removal and replaced a truthful (though 100% > white) > > pixel with a new lying pond-scum average of the surrounding pixels? >
that's not a valid comparison with removing / airbrushing a political enemy / friend. The reason why people have different expectations of photography as compared with journalistic or political writing, or being a war artist with a box of paints, is that there is a direct mechanical relationship between the subject matter in the world out there, and the representation in the camera and on the print. A hot pixel is a fault on the recording surface, so replacing it with a nearby pixel is not being dishonest about the representation of the subject matter. People get worked up about photography when it is presented dishonestly. They would get equally worked up if you presented a painting which showed Churchill in the shower with Hitler and claimed it was a true representation, or if you wrote a newspaper report about the time you saw Barack Obama and Sarah Palin French kissing in the Oval Office. I'm going for a drink now. I need to wash those thoughts right outta my head. > On the whole, I think it's better for a NEWS organization to draw the > line too strictly rather than not strictly enough. [...] > Which raises the question of how many manipulations were NOT detected? > How many times did the manipulators succeed in changing the narrative > of > history? How many times did lies prevail over the truth? > > We really don't know, but that brings us back to "it's better for a > NEWS > organization to draw the line too strictly ..." Sure, but that applies to everything, not just photography. B -- 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.
