At 07:35 PM 1/7/2003 -0800, you wrote: >Luis, > >>>>What should we call this, the "disclosure" ? > > Should this be required, or work on the honor system ? If the former, in >Journalism ? Editorial illustration ? Advertising ? Celeb portraits ? >Architectural shots ? Wedding pix ? Documentary work ? Fine art ? Hunting >magazine illustrations ? Fiction book covers ? Websites ? Just curious. > > I wonder if Karl agrees that the photorapher that does not disclose >exactly how the image is made compromises his integrity by considering that >information private ?<<<< > >Granted, I took liberties in a generalization of a concept. > >I am trying to stress that photographer's as artist have every right to take >liberties and there is nothing wrong with this. That is art. But stressing >that a connection between the photographer and the audience is a reality, >and there IS an erosion occurring about the honesty of some types of work >and that quite frankly should be a great disappointment to photographers. > >Disclosure is good term. There is no harm in disclosure. But, you omitted or >maybe missed the obvious associations. Disclosure could work where >disclosure applies. What do viewers expect? Do they expect the truth? > >Journalism = Yes >Documentary = the audience expects a Yes, a lot of times they get No. But >they will learn unfortunately. >Architecture = depends on usage. Most times, Yes >Editorial = has become a victim of it's own power and for the average >audience, a rapidly growing No. >Wedding = up to the customer. What ever they want. >Magazine Illustrations = Times, Newsweek? Yes. People? No >Fiction Book Covers = No, it's illustration for representation >Websites = depends on the type of site and what your audience expects. Yes >for some and No for others. >Advertising = of course not. They are liars. >Celeb = I could care less. But for those who do, Yes as news, No as >illustration. > >We HAVE a connection with our audience, how do you propose we keep their >faith? Or, am I just wrong, no one cares about their faith? It's not now, >nor ever was, about that? > >I do not propose we divulge our secrets of how we got a shot. It's not about >that. But, one knows when one is hedging the truth about their work. It's >not a mystery and maybe some sacrifice is necessary to maintain some level >of integrity. > >Take care, >Gregory david Stempel >FIREFRAMEi m a g i n g Gregory, Why should photographers have the responsibility of assuring anyone that may not be a critical thinker that they should have "faith" in a particular type of photograph? Do you believes that people (outside of Raliens) are so naive? No picture exists in a vacuum of trust. It makes more sense in the majority of cases to evaluate the context of the picture. Few would blindly trust the illustrations in a conservation club or a land development newsletter based on the illustrations? They might even have used the same picures! Did the photographers do their best to honestly record what they saw? Most likely they thought they did - which is fair enough. It would make no difference, however, if they did not. AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book. http://www.panoramacamera.us
