[Leica] Photoshopping for Truth?

[images at comporium.net (Tina Manley)]

The original photograph showed three people.  True, with a longer lens, the
photographer could have shown only Obama, but that is not what happened.  An
editor decided to deliberately remove one person and replace them with
clones of the ocean.  That made the original photograph an illustration, not
a news photo.  Different lenses and different framing are legitimate.
 Removing or adding details is not.

Tina

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Ric Carter <ricc at embarqmail.com> wrote:

> Look, we make assumptions in this discussion. The first is that we know
> what is happening in the original shot we see here. The president could as
> easily be mulling over a gummi-bear stuck on the toe of his flip flop.
> Framing the platforms where they are in frame pushes us in a direction as
> does the headline and context. The president could as easily be mulling 
> over
> a gummi-bear stuck on the toe of his flip flop.
>
> If the photographer had run forward, and gotten the same shot while
> cropping the others out in camera, I don't know that we would have the same
> vehemence on the topic. But, the journalistic difference would have been
> nil.
>
> Another is that the photo of three people portrays reality or truth. So far
> as reality alteration is concerned, how does a group of three people on the
> beach begin to touch on the reality of the scores of administrative
> assistants, press writers, press photographers, and Secret Service agents
> that must have been strewn along that beach. The cover artist merely 
> dropped
> two more people out of a photo in which the photographer had already 
> removed
> 50 to 100 other people.
>
> Every photo is an alteration of what is really happening. Good stewardship
> makes us steer our changes in the direction of portraying what is 
> happening,
> not lying about it. We can never show reality, only put a window frame on 
> it
> that tells a story, hopefully a true one.
>
> ric
>
>
>
> On Jul 6, 2010, at 10:59 PM, Philip Forrest wrote:
>
> > Absolutely, but the philosophy of what is and is not reality in the
> > viewfinder in front of the artist is not what is in question. We can
> > keep altering photos all we like and all of a sudden Child Protective
> > Services won't have any kids with visible marks from abuse and neglect.
> > Get the right person in charge of media and the images of concentration
> > camp liberation could be conveniently altered to meet the needs of an
> > editor or someone more powerful. But then again, that was only a
> > portion of reality as curated by an artist with a camera...
> >
> > Product photography is great, alter it all you want, but when something
> > is supposed to be news and the alteration of a photo changes its power,
> > political and emotional meaning, or has the potential to change that
> > meaning, the photo should remain unchanged.
> >
> > Phil Forrest
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 22:44:22 -0400
> > Ric Carter <ricc at embarqmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is fine so long as we all realize that the original,
> >> unphotoshopped photo was not reality--it was a view of a portion of
> >> reality as curated by an artist with a camera. Altering an image
> >> should not be confused with the altering of reality. Reality is
> >> largely subjective.
> >>
> >> ric
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jul 6, 2010, at 10:39 PM, Philip Forrest wrote:
> >>
> >>> Maybe I'm in the wrong for wanting an image to remain unaltered as a
> >>> part of the historical record.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Leica Users Group.
> >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>


-- 
Tina Manley, ASMP
www.tinamanley.com