I can't believe you! How could you put "trust" in such a narrow piece of evedence? And what do you mean "no longer be trusted"? When was it ever, and by whom? I'm not a cynical person but I know what the Reverend Moon, and Rupert dish out should be viewed with a critical eye. The most honest approach for a photographer is to give the editors a comprehensive over-view of the subject.
AZ
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: Truth in Phoyo Journalism (?)
From: trevor cunningham <tr_cunningham@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, April 18, 2007 6:21 am
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I couldn't agree with you more Greg. This is why Michael Moore is no longer a journalist and is now a film maker, ethics often fail to turn a profit. Newspapers and magazines have specifically desingated locations for interpretive work, OP-ED sections. This way, you know what you're walking into. It might be interesting to see something like this for photography in these large scale publications. But then, politicians would just have another reason to gripe about the media.
Greg Stempel <fyrframe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:>>>>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.
"The optimist believes this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it's true" - J Robert Oppenheimer
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
