Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 4:48 PM -0500 4/3/03, bdcolen wrote:
>I definitely agree with Tina on this one - the altered image is far more
>threatening, and far more dramatic, than the two unaltered images.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
I also agree.
The main point is that whatever other things we know photos lie
about, we do accept that the relation of photographer and subjects
existed as shown at the time that the photo was taken. If that is
altered, as in this photo, then it is a lie in some form as far as
reportage is concerned, just as fabricated quotes or outright lies
are lies in written journalism.
We depend on news photos showing us the relationship of photographer
and subjects at the time the photo was taken. We know the
photographer chose the angle, the perspective and the moment, but we
expect the rest to be as it really existed. If we don't have that,
news photography is completely pointless and is better left off the
news page.
Selective reporting, and editing of images including cropping is an
accepted fact of all media, but creating images or quotes or 'data'
is not and invalidates every last bit of reportage.
- --
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html