On 24 Jan 2014, at 06:24, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
The apparent believability of photography arises from the mechanical relation between the image and the subject. In other words, the sensor records something that was definitely out there - unlike painting or writing, where the text or image is mediated by the author's eye, brain and hand. Now, this believability is only apparent. We all know that all sorts of things can intervene between taking the photo and us seeing it. Therefore, as with written journalism and say war art, we rely on the photographer, writer or artist to be honest. It is the author's integrity that gives written journalism its power, and the same is true of photojournalism. If we learned that a Pulitzer prize-winning author had not been at the front he described, for example, but had spent his time in a hotel bar 50 miles from the action, or had invented the things he described, or omitted relevant information, his writing would lose all its authority, however good it was as writing. The same standards must apply to photojournalism. We must be able to trust the photographer in order to trust his photographs. This guy was dishonest in what he did, so he loses all his authority as a witness. 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.
