On 1/24/2014 1:01 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.
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.
Tom C.
That's where you get it wrong. The message of photojournalism is "This
is what I saw."
The video camera was there, so it has to remain there for accurate
photojournalism.
Photojournalism is photography, but not all photography is
photojournalism. If you're going to be a photojournalist you don't add
or remove anything from the photograph. That's in the contract you sign
when they hire you.
--
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.
