Re: Photoshopping Ist Verboten!!!

Klaus Knuth <klausknuth@xxxxxxx> · Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:28:12 -0500

God shave the free press!
Have a nice Sunday everyone!

Klaus

On Jan 25, 2014, at 9:30 PM, Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

well thats why we have a free press in the west.  To bad they lack integrity.   Now as long as the source is at least plausable it must be true.   Capt. We too loh.  comes to mind. 

Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Klaus Knuth <klausknuth@xxxxxxx> wrote:

One not so blurry line for me is an old if not ancient one:  The Nazis and the Sowjets (and many, many others before and since) having people disappear from their “group shots” - or - in other words - trying to manipulate content and opinion for political propaganda reasons.

Klaus

On Jan 25, 2014, at 9:09 PM, Klaus Knuth <klausknuth@xxxxxxx> wrote:

I think the line gets more blurry by the minute.
If you shoot “raw” on a digital camera you have to do some Lightroom/Photoshop work just to get the same, or hopefully a better result as your camera with its pre-programmed jpeg options.  As far as I know, the current NatGeo mantra is that Lightroom's general adjustments are o.k., but taking parts in or out of a “photograph” is not.  How about all those filters, lightening or darkening certain areas, like the ancient dodge and burn … ?  If the AP photographer would have just darkened the area where the film camera came in?  Still an issue to get fired for?

Klaus

On Jan 25, 2014, at 7:38 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This was also how Nat Geo felt, but now they all shoot digital, so.... They don’t like me because I do things like take out the truly ugly yellow plastic chains on NPS battlefields, but then they send Ms (Name Redacted) to Portugal and she takes out whatever she can get away with.

On Jan 25, 2014, at 7:29 PM, Bob wrote:

    But she didn't want an
        image, she wanted a photograph.  Since she was "the boss" the pj
        went back and got "the photograph"

        Bob

    On 1/25/2014 7:19 PM, Andrew Sharpe
      wrote:

      Heh. So much for photojournalism. In fact, the photographer was there,
so a photojournalist *editor* should have accepted that one.

Andrew

On 1/25/14, 3:46 PM, Bob wrote:

        Some time ago we had a Photo Editor from the local newspaper speak at a
camera club meeting. 

When Photoshop came up she told us about  a shot one of the pjs took at
the local annual air show,  The photo showed the pj reflected in the
pilots helmet.  the pj said he could remove that with Photoshop.  She
told him that was not the way it worked.  She sent him back to get the
shot without the reflection. 

She explained that there is a difference between a photograph and a
Potoshopped IMAGE.

Bob
On 1/25/2014 5:25 PM, John Palcewski wrote:

          The Associated Press Is Not 'Vogue,' Fired Photoshopping Photographer
Learns

"Digitally altering photographs might be accepted -- expected, really
-- when it comes to magazines like Vogue, but it's a big no-no when it
comes to news organizations. Yet that's what one Pulitzer-winning AP
photographer chose to do to a photo he took in Syria in September."

Full story here:

http://bit.ly/1enSYZO

        -- 
Never trust atoms..... They make up everything.

    -- 

      Never trust atoms..... They make up everything.

Art Faul

The Artist Formerly Known as Prints

------
Art for Cars: art4carz.com

Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com

Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com

Camera Works - The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm

ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/

.