|
This subject is an interesting topic. My wife used to be a cheerleader for the Phoenix
Giants, a college ball team. This was in the 80’s before Photoshop, but when
the team poster was printed, the girls were surprised to find their boobs all appeared
to be a little bigger. The photographer had airbrushed in a faint shadow,
giving the appearance of more cleavage. No doubt a liberty was taken but no one
seemed to mind that “the truth” was altered slightly... PW From: owner- Karl, "Journalism, whether by using words or pictures, must be an
accurate 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!
-------- Original Message
-------- Bob posts:: This was in this morning's (16 April 2007) issue of The Cleveland Plain: Dealer, one of the area's daily newspapers. I found it interesting.::http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/117672094448040.xml&coll=2"Journalism, whether by using words or pictures, must be an accuraterepresentation of the truth," Royhab wrote.you know pictures aside, I find my eyebrows raising when I read this linek |
