AlunFoto wrote:
The principle of this is much more than just semantics. The
photographer was present where the photo was made. What to include is
the photographer's informed decision based on first hand accounts. An
editorial crop will always be second-guessing the photographer's
observation,
On Sep 26, 2009, at 11:48, Tim Bray wrote:
Is it OK to crop a picture to make an editorial point? The answer's
not obvious. See
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/the-ethics-of-photocropping.html
I believe in this instance that it is much fuss about nothing. It's
On Sep 26, 2009, at 14:37, Larry Colen wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 09:48:51AM -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
Is it OK to crop a picture to make an editorial point? The answer's
not obvious. See
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/the-ethics-of-photocropping.html
I'll
On 26/9/09, steve harley, discombobulated, unleashed:
suppose it were Adolph Hitler and the photo hadn't been cropped
And he was cutting up whale meat
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
From: John Francis
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 07:28:08PM -0700, Larry Colen wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 07:38:46PM -0600, steve harley wrote:
suppose it were Adolph Hitler and the photo hadn't been
cropped nor juxtaposed with a damning quote, would we see a
man at a family gathering and
- Original Message -
From: Cotty
Subject: Re: The Ethics of Photo-Cropping
On 26/9/09, steve harley, discombobulated, unleashed:
suppose it were Adolph Hitler and the photo hadn't been cropped
And he was cutting up whale meat
If it was Hitler, wouldn't it be Long Pork
suppose it were Adolph Hitler and the photo hadn't been cropped
And he was cutting up whale meat
If it was Hitler, wouldn't it be Long Pork?
Actually, I believe by the time he got around to starting
wars and such he
was already a vegetarian.
Perhaps he liked to cut up whales
- Original Message -
From: Bob W
Subject: RE: The Ethics of Photo-Cropping
suppose it were Adolph Hitler and the photo hadn't been cropped
And he was cutting up whale meat
If it was Hitler, wouldn't it be Long Pork?
Actually, I believe by the time he got around to starting
On 2009-09-27 03:15 , Cotty wrote:
On 26/9/09, steve harley, discombobulated, unleashed:
suppose it were Adolph Hitler and the photo hadn't been cropped
And he was cutting up whale meat
i thought it was a worthwhile thought experiment; i wasn't comparing
Cheney to Hitler (though it
Newsweek's crop is unethical. Most news sources wouldn't allow it. It
changed the message of the photo. At the NY Times, minor cropping for
clarity is okay, but almost all photo alteration is strictly prohibited.
In fine art photography, anything goes. The photographer is free to
use all
The uncropped frame was still a selective view, one that the
photographer cropped from the scene as it occurred. We can't be
certain that the context of the uncropped picture was faithful to the
actual event, so why should we be worried by the editorial crop?
It was a boring picture of a bunch
On Sep 26, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Anthony Farr wrote:
The uncropped frame was still a selective view, one that the
photographer cropped from the scene as it occurred. We can't be
certain that the context of the uncropped picture was faithful to the
actual event, so why should we be worried by the
THIS is a crop of dubious ethics (except that it portrays a widely
held opinion of the subject, Alan Jones):
http://www.ans.com.au/~jgwr/alanjones.jpg
WARNING. NSFW (or children, or the easily offended)
regards, Anthony
Of what use is lens and light
to those who lack in mind and sight
On Sep 26, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Anthony Farr wrote:
THIS is a crop of dubious ethics (except that it portrays a widely
held opinion of the subject, Alan Jones):
http://www.ans.com.au/~jgwr/alanjones.jpg
That's not a crop. it's a camera angle gimmick that was apparently the
intention of the
The photographer didn't crop it. The magazine did, and the photographer was
displeased.
That's a semantic juggle. Unless the view is an immersive 360 degrees
in all planes, the photographer ALWAYS selects the field of view as a
portion of the entire reality. He/she is no more innocent than
The principle of this is much more than just semantics. The
photographer was present where the photo was made. What to include is
the photographer's informed decision based on first hand accounts. An
editorial crop will always be second-guessing the photographer's
observation, and maybe put their
On Sep 26, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Anthony Farr wrote:
The photographer didn't crop it. The magazine did, and the
photographer was
displeased.
That's a semantic juggle. Unless the view is an immersive 360 degrees
in all planes, the photographer ALWAYS selects the field of view as a
portion
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:48:35 -0400
paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
In the world of art, all doors must remain open. In reporting news,
truth is the absolute standard.
Truth is always relative.
every photo taken is a chosen slice of the world.
there might have been a bust of
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 02:49:56PM -0400, paul stenquist wrote:
On Sep 26, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Anthony Farr wrote:
The photographer didn't crop it. The magazine did, and the
photographer was
displeased.
That's a semantic juggle. Unless the view is an immersive 360 degrees
in all
On Sep 26, 2009, at 3:06 PM, John Francis wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 02:49:56PM -0400, paul stenquist wrote:
On Sep 26, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Anthony Farr wrote:
The photographer didn't crop it. The magazine did, and the
photographer was
displeased.
That's a semantic juggle. Unless
As a photographer I've actually had egregious crops of my work to
fulfill an editors agenda. This kind of thing was happening 30 years
ago, it's not new.
AlunFoto wrote:
The principle of this is much more than just semantics. The
photographer was present where the photo was made. What to
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 09:48:51AM -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
Is it OK to crop a picture to make an editorial point? The answer's
not obvious. See
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/the-ethics-of-photocropping.html
I'll wade into the silliness:
Cropping a photo is no
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 03:22:18PM -0400, paul stenquist wrote:
Given the caption, the crop obviously presents a different message than
what was originally recorded in the photo. That is fact.
No it isn't - it's still your interpretation. What Cheney is doing
remains the same, whether or
On Sep 26, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 09:48:51AM -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
Is it OK to crop a picture to make an editorial point? The answer's
not obvious. See
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/the-ethics-of-photocropping.html
I'll
On Sep 26, 2009, at 3:40 PM, John Francis wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 03:22:18PM -0400, paul stenquist wrote:
Given the caption, the crop obviously presents a different message
than
what was originally recorded in the photo. That is fact.
No it isn't - it's still your interpretation.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 03:45:14PM -0400, paul stenquist wrote:
On Sep 26, 2009, at 3:40 PM, John Francis wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 03:22:18PM -0400, paul stenquist wrote:
Given the caption, the crop obviously presents a different message
than
what was originally recorded in the
On Sep 26, 2009, at 3:55 PM, John Francis wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 03:45:14PM -0400, paul stenquist wrote:
On Sep 26, 2009, at 3:40 PM, John Francis wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 03:22:18PM -0400, paul stenquist wrote:
Given the caption, the crop obviously presents a different
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 04:01:30PM -0400, paul stenquist wrote:
I guess that's where we disagree - I think Newsweek crossed the line
when they chose the photograph, not when they cropped out the other
people (who, as Larry has pointed out, weren't relevant to the story).
I can't imagine
On Sep 26, 2009, at 4:12 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 04:01:30PM -0400, paul stenquist wrote:
I guess that's where we disagree - I think Newsweek crossed the line
when they chose the photograph, not when they cropped out the other
people (who, as Larry has pointed out,
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 10:48 AM, paul stenquist
pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
Newsweek's crop is unethical. Most news sources wouldn't allow it. It
changed the message of the photo. At the NY Times, minor cropping for
clarity is okay, but almost all photo alteration is strictly prohibited.
On Sep 26, 2009, at 4:27 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 10:48 AM, paul stenquist
pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
Newsweek's crop is unethical. Most news sources wouldn't allow it. It
changed the message of the photo. At the NY Times, minor cropping for
clarity is okay, but almost
- Original Message -
From: Larry Colen
Subject: Re: The Ethics of Photo-Cropping
Or could it be possible that one person chose the photo, another
cropped it, and someone else chose the quote? Fred's doing the
article, calls up Sally and says, get me a picture of Cheney from
From: Tim Bray
Is it OK to crop a picture to make an editorial point? The answer's
not obvious. See
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/the-ethics-of-photocropping.html
Really hard to tell without the cropped image for comparison.
From: paul stenquist
On Sep 26, 2009, at 4:12 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Just out of curiousity, is there any connection between the photo and
the quote? Was that the shot they had from that interview? Or did
they go through five years of archives to find it?
Based on the photographer's
On 2009-09-26 10:48 , Tim Bray wrote:
Is it OK to crop a picture to make an editorial point? The answer's
not obvious. See
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/the-ethics-of-photocropping.html
i don't see an ethical problem at all; i respect reporting better when
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 07:38:46PM -0600, steve harley wrote:
suppose it were Adolph Hitler and the photo hadn't been cropped nor
juxtaposed with a damning quote, would we see a man at a family
gathering and nothing more?
Thank goodness, this thread is now over.
--
The first step is
Larry Colen wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 07:38:46PM -0600, steve harley wrote:
suppose it were Adolph Hitler and the photo hadn't been cropped nor
juxtaposed with a damning quote, would we see a man at a family
gathering and nothing more?
Thank goodness, this thread is now over.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 07:28:08PM -0700, Larry Colen wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 07:38:46PM -0600, steve harley wrote:
suppose it were Adolph Hitler and the photo hadn't been cropped nor
juxtaposed with a damning quote, would we see a man at a family
gathering and nothing more?
38 matches
Mail list logo
