RE: [Leica] The camera doesn't lie!

[Paul Chefurka <Paul_Chefurka@pmc-sierra.com>]

The more pervasive point in Gib's post (for me, anyway) is the one about any
photo not telling the only truth.  It's a truism that photographers
manipulate "truth" all the time simply through the choices the make - about
what to shoot and what to ignore, or through picking the one shot out of the
series of frames that tells the story they want to tell.

Even such an admirable book as yours, Ted, is but a single version of
"truth".  In your book, doctors are all portrayed as dedicated, caring,
competent human beings.  You did not photograph incompetent, substandard
doctors who treat patients with a twist of the lip and an eye on their bank
balance.  You did not show jammed waiting rooms full of people each
desperate for their three minutes with such a doctor, or courtrooms full of
weeping, maimed victims during malpractice hearings.  But such an approach
would be just as "truthful" as the one you took - these things happen, and
can be photographed honestly and ethically, with a clear conscience.

The camera may not lie, but photographers either do lie all the time, or at
least assemble their own truths.

This discussion reminds me of the arguments in the Ottawa Camera Club over
whether digital prints should be allowed to compete in the same categories
as traditional wet prints.  What becomes ever more clear is that these
issues are like a great black and white print - the closer you look, the
more shades of gray you see.

Paul Chefurka


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ted Grant [mailto:tedgrant@home.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 9:59 AM
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Leica] The camera doesn't lie!
>
>
>Gib Robinson wrote:
>SNIP...........
>
>> In some cases we are likely to be paid to tell one kind of 
>truth and only
>> one kind of truth -- as in portrait photos, weddings, 
>corporate PR and the
>> like. I've always admired painters who painted royalty and 
>produced images
>> that were not altogether flattering -- risking their careers 
>and, perhaps,
>> their lives.
>> 
>> Do Nachtwey and Salgado tell the truth? The same truth? The 
>only truth? How
>> about Tina and Ted?<<<<<<<<<
>
>Hi Gib,
>I can only speak for myself, but mine have always been  "what you see,
>is what was there!"  It's a case of being true to ones self and beliefs
>as a photojournalist recording whatever the subject is.
>
>To those news photographers or photojournalists who have no 
>truth ethics
>towards others, then I suppose lying with their cameras or computer is
>OK in their eyes.
>
>In the new book we're working on there will be a disclaimer: "These are
>real-time unaltered photographs as originally recorded on film and not
>computer manipulated!"  Or words to that effect . 
>
>It gets pretty bad when news/sports related pictures that catches ones
>eye, a question mark comes up as to whether it's,  "real time? or
>computer time?"    :-(
>
>ted
>