RE: [Leica] fired for photoshopping

["bdcolen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Frank, I just don't understand how you can not 'get' this -

First, Jerry Uelsman is an ART photographer - his work has less than
nothing to do with this discussion. I would even go so far as to argue
that his work is not photography, but that's another discussion
entirely.

What we are talking about here is a photographer who failed to get the
powerful shot he hoped to get "constructing" that powerful shot from two
mediocre images, and then passing off the resulting construction as a
photo he took, rather than as an illustration he made. What he did was
dishonest - to his editors, and to the readers of the paper. And that
journalistic dishonesty, rather than violating some technical rule, is
what got him fired.

As you point out, photographers have long burned, dodged, and cropped -
and that has been considered a legitimate part of the photographic
process. Similarly, photographers burn, crop, and dodge using Photoshop.
But in this case, there was no image to burn, dodge or crop. THE
PHOTOGRAPHER DID NOT TAKE THE PHOTOGRAPH HE SENT TO HIS EDITORS - HE
CONSTRUCTED IT FROM ELEMENTS FROM TWO OTHER PHOTOS. What about that
don't you understand?

I'm beginning to think that the reason you either don't get this, or
want to argue about it, is that you are so convinced that all media, and
all journalists, are such lying scum that you are unable to process the
idea that there are standards, and that people get fired for violating
them. And if that's the case, this discussion is pointless. ;-)

B. D. 
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Frank
Filippone
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 12:50 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] fired for photoshopping


Ever seen Jerry Uelsman's ( sp?) work?  Pretty amazing manipulation.

There are 2 issues here.... altering an image, and getting fired.  The
getting fired part is most likely an issue of following commands from
your boss.  I don;t see a way out of that position.  If you break a
written rule, you deserve the consequences you get.  If that kills your
career, ditto. You deserve the consequences you get.

The altering an image, using the logic that it is perceived that images
are "the truth"  is sort of akin to believing all you read in the paper
because it is written down, or words spoken through the radio ( Case in
point is the current PR being spoken by the Iraqi Information Minister
that the US is getting nowhere in the war in Iraq) .  That position I
find naive.  It may be that the average reader of the paper DOES indeed
believe what he reads/sees.  That would justify the position of
non-manipulation in some minds.  However, I can not justify why a
written word journalist or the editorial staff of a paper can apply 2
standards to the same paper.  ( OK BD, I give in on the advertisers
telling the truth.. if required, there would be no advertising!)
Cropping an image in the darkroom, cropping an image in Photoshop,
adding/deleting elements through dodging, adding/deleting elements throu
Photoshop...I do not see the difference.

In the "old days", did the photojournalists actually submit printed
photos to their editors, or did they submit FILM, from which the editors
woould select images, cropping, etc?  Could this be the basis for the
double standard?

I do like the idea that altered images be so marked, and maybe, given
the abilities the papers' have through the Internet, they could posst
all 3 images, so the reader could make his own conclusion about the
"story" the picture tells.

Frank Filippone
red735i@earthlink.net

To do nothing in Photoshop
that he wouldn't do in a wet darkroom.


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html