RE: [Leica] some new snaps, a propos

["Phong" <phong@doan-ltd.com>]

> I guess it's up to our trust in your credibility that
> the photos you show the world portray what you claim
> they do.

This ix the crux of the matter to me.  Two people on this list
have taught me a lot of about the integrity of the image,
especially with respect to photo journalism/documentary:
you and B.D.  I came from the other end where artistic
and emotional values are what matters, and you have opened
my eyes so to speak and made me understand the other end.
For that, I have thankful and have much respect for you.

That said, I think that belaboring the professional standards
with respect to image manipulation is missing the point.
The public distrust of the media has little to do with that.
It has a lot of to do with editorial decisions with respect to
what stories to run, what programs to show, being owned by
commercial concerns, giving in tho the government, sanitizing
the war, etc., etc., etc.  Only photographers think that image
manipulation is such a big deal in the public loss of trust in
the media.

- - Phong





> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Eric Welch
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 3:57 AM
> To: Leicalist
> Subject: Re: [Leica] some new snaps, a propos
>
>
> I don't see any proof that those things happened because the photographers
> were there.
>
> Or even that those are real photojournalists. I guess it's up to our trust
> in your credibility that the photos you show the world portray what you
> claim they do.
>
> How can I believe them when you have an obvious agenda to prove that point
> (that photographers influence anything they photograph), and you admit you
> are willing to manipulate situations to say what you want, regardless of
> whether the photos reflect reality or not? According to you, it makes no
> difference.
>
> Based on your arguments, I don't buy it. If those are real photographers I
> have no reason to believe the situations they were covering wouldn't have
> happened if they were there or not.
>
> You say so? Well, excuse me for being skeptical anyway.
>
> on 11/6/03 11:20 PM, Rob Appleby at rob@robertappleby.com wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I have been meditating on all these issues quite a bit
> over the last
> > year, and one of my major concerns now in my work is to show
> the distorting
> > effect of the media and to integrate the presence of the
> photographer into
> > the image. A first attempt at such:
> >
> > http://robertappleby.com/images/new.pdf
>
>
> Eric Welch
> Carlsbad, CA
> http://www.jphotog.com
>
> The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is
> that it has never tried to contact us.
>  - Calvin and Hobbes
>
> --
> 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