. But that remains now only a personal interest: digital has made everyone cynical. Veracity - what's that? Who gives a damn.
I don't think this is a digital issue, it's a photography issue.
I'm reminded of an article I read about seven or eight years ago about how children were getting hurt by caged animals because they got too close. The reason, after some investigation, for their lack of fear of wild animals was the use of tame animals in wild animal photography parks and with telephoto lenses that showed closeups of wild animals looking "cute." So much for veracity.
I've used the properties of color film for years to completely warp the colors of my images. Few of them bear any resemblance to the colors that were originally there. I've edited scenes when I frame to create things that didn't happen. I've occasionally used models in street scenes to create events. All of these happen with film. I've used slow shutter speeds, camera shake, and depth of field effects to remove the sense of showing the world "as it looked to the eye." I can do this now with Photoshop, but regardless of the technique, the results don't bear resemblance to "reality."
In the end, the only veracity rests with the photographer, not with the medium, and it's always been that way.
Jeff Spirer
Photos: http://www.spirer.com
One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
Surfaces and Marks: http://www.withoutgrass.com
