Yes, you could analyze it to no end, but that's really not too
helpful for a photojournalist trying to get their job done.
Why the caption? Because photographs don't give you things such as
names or exact locations, and a photograph rarely tells the whole
story. Without the photograph there would need to be another 1,000
words.
You sound very cynical to me. The line is quite clear--only global
changes to correct (not enhance) color and tonality. No removal or
addition of content. I didn't like my photographs cropped, but that
was never my decision as a photographer. If you want to get into a
philosophical discussion of what is "flawed by nature" you'll have to
take that up with someone else. Everything is flawed by nature in my
opinion, especially so-called glamour photography. ;-)
Rich
On Apr 25, 2007, at 1:08 AM, Alberto Tirado wrote:
--- Rich Mason wrote:
... and no picture should be
trusted?
Not exactly. what I am saying is that no picture IS to
be trusted! One of the topics of this very complex
matter, is precisely the way we look at pictures,
enshrined as the final evidence or representation of a
reality that is conditioned by editorial decisions.
For one example: if a picture is worth a 1000 words,
then why the caption? Because quite frequently, those
1000 words fall short of the 10 or 20 that the editor
needs to tell *his* version of the story.
I think the possibility of getting fired ...
IMHO, as of the NYT case, the editors, not the
photographer, should be fired.
... when I was a staff photographer and lab
tech--except in rare
circumstances, such as ...
The arguments of "except in rare circumstances" or
"only color/contrast correction" are my point about
the weakness of this "no manipulation allowed"
policies. The line has proven impossible to be drawn
somewhere.
Even if I am not a PJ, I try to understand the other
POV, but I think it is flawed by nature, that's all.
All the Best,
**********************
www.alberto-tirado.com
johnploy.blogspot.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
