|
In a message dated 17/04/2007 01:14:02 GMT Standard Time,
lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
So what do you think about altering pictures for editorial use? I think it has always been done for good or for bad reasons. Why is the veracity of a photo any different than text? Maybe it boils down to fitness for purpose and extends beyond the realms of
photo journalism.
I was aggrieved and wasted time and money in my search for a new home by
realators (estate agents in the UK) who used doctored photos in their adverts of
houses for sale, removal of the factory chimney partly concealed by the house
goes way beyond artistic licence)
Sports photography must not show a ball in the net if in reality the
ball had bounced off the post of the soccer goal.
Photos of a person reported as having been convicted must be the person
concerned and correctly captioned and any photograph of celebrities or royals,
to name but two categories, should not be staged photos using look a
likes.
Whilst photographs to support articles about travel within a country might
perhaps be enhanced for clarity if the photo is used to advertise an hotel it
should not be permissible to remove the artifacts from the next door building
site to make the hotel more attractive.
Economy with the truth has been a feature of journalism for a long time but
in the days when there was said to be no news in Pravda and no truth in
Isvestia it was not unusual to see a photo of three or four elderly ladies
at prayer in a church which ignored the thousand people kneeling behind them.
Historical revisionists often needed to remove certain people from group
photographs, however, if the photo had been taken where there was a paved
surface, it was often easy to spot the places where the paving stones were of an
irregular size.
Photographs of horror scenes, accidents, disasters or crimes maybe suffer
from over exposure, their sheer multiplicity detracting from their effect, but
for the purposes of investigation photos from mobile phones, surveillance
cameras, and anyone around with a camera at the time, may well be of value and
contribute to the understanding of a root cause or the capture of a
criminal. The word napalm brings a particular image to my mind and this
one shot may have had a marked impact on the war in Vietnam but whether Saddam's
end was dignified or whether he went to his death protesting is, in my opinion,
of little consequence
Photos, images, sketches or whatever should be fit for the purpose but, if
the purpose or the image is wrong, society will reap no benefit from
it
IMHO (a phrase I use sparingly). Michael
|
