Any single image can never represent the truth. A photo 1/10 second
earlier can be totally different to one 1/10 second later.
You can select 2 different photos which show totally different
interactions at the same event. In Princess Diana's personal crisis with
Prince Charles, it was easy to print only those photos which "showed"
her unhappiness and ignore those that didn't.
Look in "Pictures on a Page" by Harold Evans - it's a wonderful
PRE-digital teaching tool with loads of simple examples of how a
photograph either deliberately lie or persuade you that the events
following immediately afterwards must follow a certain but untrue path.
Want examples? I'll web publish some if you want.
Moral: never trust anything you see! Especially where headlines and
money are concerned. Oh, and politics too!
Howard
P.S - I can't stand Phoyo any longer!!!
lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Karl,
"Journalism, whether by using words or pictures, must be an accurate
representation of the truth," Royhab wrote.
I don't see a problem with that until someone insists that an
un-altered photo is more truthful. The whole point of messing with an
image is to make it tell the story better. Going way back into photo
journalism history photos were frequently fixied up for technical or
layout reasons. You would see few un-altered, i.e retouched, collaged,
cropped images in an old newspaper photo archive. Going further to
remove things and people not deemed important to the story was
common. Before and after versions of pictures are often
strikingly different. There's a book about NYT photos - or newspapers
in general - that illustrates all this.
Photos are just a small piece of the picture - pun intended.
AZ
Build a 120/35mm Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
Now an E-book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us <http://www.panoramacamera.us/>
