|
Photographers get fired because they're not allowed to "Doctor"
images post shooting.... But how much more "Doctored" and even
sinister, is a photograph when the biased photographer changes his
position in order to exclude a scene that contradicts the story he's
trying to tell. Here the evil is untraceable so I suppose you would
say that was acceptable and would not call that photograph
"Doctored"? No magazine will send you on an assignment without telling you the "Angle" they want the story from. Picture a scenario where a hard-core, right-wing paper and a hard-core, left-wing paper each send a photographer to cover the same event. They'll come back with completely different images. Now we know, logically, that if two pieces of data contradict each other they can either both be lies or one can be true but they can't both be true... So where is the absolute truth here? With any photography you can make up any story you like and then selectively shoot images to make the story look true. Look at the amazing work of Leni Riefenstahl who made Hitler look like a savior to the German population. She had no digital cameras and no Photoshop. BTW, I have read Chapnick's book, even taught using it as a text book... and I found it rather naive and sometimes a little too sentimental. Some of the greatest photojournalism which was accepted as truth when it was published has subsequently been found to have been "Doctored" Herschel On 8/31/11 11:05 PM, Gregory wrote:
|
