On 24/01/2014 12:01 AM, Tom C wrote:
Bill wrote:
At the same time, there is that which we are willing to accept as a
truthful representation, even though it cannot be unaltered and still
be something we can hold in our hands and say "this really sucks"
What you guys are saying is that if you have an insurance claim, you
might as well Photoshop in some more damage since the evidence picture
isn't the truth anyway.
Have a spat with your boyfriend? Just Photoshop in a black eye and
make it look like he split your lip and knocked out a couple of teeth.
Get that f#cker sent to jail for bringing home Pepperoni and mushroom
rather than ham and pineapple. He won't make that mistake twice.
It doesn't matter, since whatever you use as evidence is a lie anyway.
----
Now you know that's not what I'm saying.
I don't know anything of the sort. You know full well it's just the kind
of thing you would say.
In that image of interest, if a bloody body was photo-shopped out or
in, that would be crossing the line, especially if it was supposed to
DOCUMENT the scene at that place at that point in time. If the image
is not meant to document something, but instead be illustrative, then
removing or cropping a distracting item does not alter the message any
more than panning the camera alters the message. In the case of the
image in question, the superfluous video camera was never part of the
intended message to begin with.
But it still changes the context of the picture, however slightly. And
then, you have the dirty job of deciding where the line is, and at some
point, an image is going to slip through that belongs on the Commentary
and Viewpoints page, not a hard news page.
And then credibility is pretty much lost forever.
You are saying that it is possible to be a little bit pregnant.
bill
--
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.
