John wrote:
>If you draw the line at "nothing added, nothing removed" no one can
>argue about how much has been changed in the story the image tells.
>
>There's really nowhere else you can draw that line without it being
>challenged.
Yep. As I pointed out earlier, what's involved here is a three-way
transaction between readers/viewers, editors and the photo agency
(AP). Readers expect that a news photo will show only what was in
front of the camera (seen in the viewfinder) with nothing added or
removed. If one instance is permitted, even if it's insignificant,
they'll be suspicious that other, significant elements may be changed
in other images. Or at least editors are afraid they'll start to think
that way. Same thing, from a business standpoint. AP has set an
absolute standard ("nothing added, nothing removed"). Whether he
approved philosophically or not, the photographer *agreed to these
terms* when he went to work for AP.
AP has likely set this absolute standard because they believe that as
soon as the public who views their photographs or the editors who buy
them *start* do doubt their veracity even a little it's a slippery
slope they won't be able to get off. And that would be the end of
their business.
--
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
--
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.
