On 24 Jan 2014, at 17:29, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: > > (I hate when I forget to edit the subject. Sorry for the double post) > > From: Mark Roberts <[email protected]> > > Bruce wrote: > >> I couldn't have said it better myself Tom. The entire concept of photography >> is to create an image from the mind/concept/perspective of the photographer. >> To think that any photograph represents the unaltered truth is ridiculous. > > That's where this discussion is going astray: No one expects a > photograph to represent the unaltered truth, but they do expect it to > represent an unaltered *photograph*. > > ----------------------------- > > Well I don't have that expectation. I expect that the image accurately > conveys the message, not whether it has been altered in some minor > fashion or not. That's me though. :) > > I do understand the principle, no alterations = no questions as to > legitimacy for any given image, and of course as you pointed out > later. he did not fulfill his contract. So I have no argument there. > > Some of us are viewing it through a different lens so to speak. > > First there's the different 'standards or expectations' of PJ > compared to other photography. Then there's the whole idea of whether > the news being reported to us is objective to begin with, which I'll > contend it's not. Slanting stories, ignoring potential sources, and > using sound bites, alters what is reported, not to mention the innate > bias any human possesses. The mere act of editing the written word > potentially discards valuable information. > > At that point to call in to question the integrity of a photograph > that had a minor element removed is duplicitous. Holding photography > to a different standard than the non-visual aspects of the story is > duplicitous as well. >
As I said earlier, it's mainly a matter of whether or not the photographer can be trusted as a reliable witness. In the case of this particular photograph I would argue that the thing he removed was not a minor element, and it's not for him to make that call anyway. We live in a postmodern age where we are constantly looking at ourselves and each other, in which image is everything, and self-awareness is very much part of our understanding of ourselves and our culture. A video camera in a war scene is important because it gives context to the event as well as to the presence of observers at the event. Think of the scene in Apocalypse Now! where Coppola, the movie director, shows himself as a newsreel director filming soldiers, and telling them not to look at the camera. And we the audience know he's the director of the movie. That's what it's about. 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.
