Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>"Lying with photographs is more serious than lying with words, because >people believe that the camera cannot lie." >Think about about that for a moment in this day of computers, digital >cameras and photoshop. >Do you feel this is right or wrong? >ted The most important asset our newspaper has is its credibility, and we struggle daily to maintain it. Our policy that says we will not materially alter the content of a photo, and we interpret that to mean that digital burning, dodging, cloning out dust and scratches, correcting color, and contrast are allowed. Removing a reflection, or worse a Coke can (which happened at another newspaper-the photog was fired), or moving a pyramid (Nat. Geo.) are not. Of course, since I first saw Photoshop, I assume that every advertising photo has been substantially altered. And I used to look at these photos and try to learn about lighting, composition, backgrounds. Not anymore. In my line of work, we cannot afford to lie. But the line becomes more blurred every time one of our artists manipulates a photo and calls it a "photo illustration" in the outline. I feel that there's a place where manipulation is OK, like in the allegorical, and powerful work of Jerry Uelsmann. If one is putting a photo on a wall and the goal is impact, art has never told the literal truth. There's a place where it's not acceptable - in a newspaper, news magazine, or journal. On the other hand, one could argue that if the subject is aware of the camera, the truth cannot be told. - -Jack Milton http://home.maine.rr.com/jackmilton - -Jack Milton http://home.maine.rr.com/jackmilton