On 23/01/2014 9:49 PM, Tom C wrote: The problem I see is that there's a basic assumption that the photons entering the lens and recorded on the media somehow represent THE TRUTH. I believe that assumption is flawed.
------------------------------- That's because your basic assumption is a flawed premise. The picture doesn't represent the truth, it represents a reflection of the truth. The Old Ones know the truth, but they have long since gone beyond the Rim. bill -------------------------------- I understand your point, an image is a reflection/rendering of a narrow reality at that point in space-time in the direction the camera was pointing. :) For "photo-journalism" to say an image is untruthful or has no integrity because an object is removed, is fallacious at best and hypocritical at worst, because a like image taken from a slightly different vantage point would also eliminate that object and still be considered truthful. If the object removed was done so with the intent of altering the message, that's different. Subtraction is the basic process of composition. Other alterations or additions have more to do with changing the integrity of the image. I have a real problem with additions or moving of objects in an image. Alterations to achieve a desired effect, be it exposure, contrast, saturation, are in many respects the bread and butter of non-documentary photography. Tom C. -- 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.
