Well said. M ak D
In a message dated 1/26/2014 1:20:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: What we have here is photographer as witness and photograph as testimony. Modifying the photograph to removing an element with Photoshop even if it's just to make the image cleaner supposedly strikes at the credibility of the witness. I also know from personal experience that an editor can crop a photograph to completely change the story, or ignore it entirely. On 1/26/2014 2:25 PM, knarf wrote: > "Photographs aren't reality"? > > Your going to have to define what you consider reality to be, Marnie. > > The subject of a photo is real. (I'm talking about a "traditional" photograph taken by a camera/lens onto a light-sensitive surface) > > The photo itself is most certainly real. Even if it has been manipulated or altered, it most certainly is a real, existing thing. > > Perhaps what you meant is that a photo is not always (or even "ever") a completely accurate portrayal of the subject? That certainly isn't the same as saying "photos aren't reality", because they are. > > It's fidelity to the photographed subject/event that's at issue. > > It's snowing and quite beautiful out. I'm going to go take photos now. They will be a representation/portrayal of reality, I assure you. > > ;-) > > Cheers, > frank > > > > > [email protected] wrote: >> Of course it is. Photographs aren't reality. >> >> Cell phones and the fact everyone has cell phones with cameras now, >> have >> turned up quite a few police abuses in the news. Bystanders take >> pictures. >> With so MANY images out there now, a photojournalist is really taking a >> crazy >> risk altering a picture. >> >> Photographers know how much "reality" can be altered just by what they >> >> decide to include in the frame, even without Photoshopping, but that >> isn't >> really the issue. >> >> EVERYONE knows about Photoshopping, we are all subjected to craftily >> photographed ads all the time. News agencies SHOULD have different >> standards, if >> they didn't, propaganda would be too darn easy. >> >> People need to trust they aren't being DELIBERATELY lied to. Or forget >> new >> agencies altogether and just assume/admit they are propaganda machines >> >> like any other Madison Ave ad company. >> >> Marnie >> >> In a message dated 1/23/2014 7:49:38 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, >> [email protected] writes: >> 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. >> > “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel > > > -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- 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. -- 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.
