Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]After reading many of the responses to the original post, I find that I agree with Tina Manley and would like to explain why. First, I cannot dispute Rabs' point, that no significant "lie" occurred, no political implications can be drawn, from the deletion of a person from the picture. In terms of the possible difference of mood--was he alone, was he accompanied--one is just nit picking. So, why do I agree with Tina? It is precisely because it becomes a judgement call, because, as others have said, it has to be decided on a case by case basis. That is exactly the point! There will always be the borderline case, where there is strong difference of opinion as to whether the alteration of a picture does or does not change the meaning of the photographed incident. For this very reason, it is better to have a fixed rule: do not alter the content of a journalistic photograph. Clearly, this should not be applied to the digital equivalent of dodging, which, in general, cannot change the meaning of the photograph in a news sense. At the risk of going a bit off topic: I don't understand the prohibition by many journals of a technique whose name I can't remember, namely taking a rapid sequence of bracketing shots and reducing the result to one composite in order to cover a greater luminance range. Herb -- Herbert Kanner kanner at acm.org 650-326-8204 Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will pee on your computer!