Greg,
I understand the mystique regarding the truth-telling properties of photographs. It is one of the main reason’s I love photography. Photographs tell lots and lots of truth. The trouble for journalists is deciding which truth in the picture supports the facts under consideration. I’m saying the picture is a supporting document for a colaboration with the editor and writer’s story. There is no reason to insist on some kind of impossibly pure - Truth Almighty Photograph. Look at the differences among the popular media outlets. Where’s the truth? Same film clip, same wire service image and what do you get? And they all believe they are "fair and balanced."
I’ve already mentioned that I agree that a wire service must insist on a hands-off policy towards changes. The reason isn’t so much because only unchanged images are truthful. The customers must get the "un-varnished truth" for uniformity across venues. The image is only truthful unto itself.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: Truth in Phoyo Journalism (?)
From: Greg Stempel <fyrframe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, April 17, 2007 4:16 pm
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>The whole point of messing with an image is to make it tell the story better.<<<<<WRONG!Altering an image, diverting from the actual event captured on film or censor is nothing more than someone's interpretation or intention. People dilute. They will dilute the truth, actions or interpretations of almost anything to further their own gains. It is that simple.Lots of you will argue that truth is up for grabs, that your lifestyle sees colors differently than mine. Wrong. Truth is truth. It's your lack of discipline or ethics that are really to blame. A selfish need to have more and we can't be satisfied until we have added our own flavor. Just because you don't see any harm in enhancing a scene, appearing innocent enough, doesn't mean you haven't played with or diluted the truth.Increasing contrast is not altering the truth, unless it hides something in the shadows, regardless of the end result. Adding shadows under breast lines to "enhance" a figure is altering the truth, period. But, diluters see it as OK, because it appears to harmlessly add an innocent bit of fluff. If that same shadow made the girl look like she was flat breasted, the offender would be attacked as un-ethical.And, don't give me this crap that cropping or burning and dodging have always been around. So what, they don't alter the context, just the content. There is big difference between the two.Photography can no longer be trusted. That's a crime no matter how you try to shake free.
