Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]bdcolen wrote: > I'm sorry, but in this case the responsibility is indeed the > photographer's, and not the paper's: the paper should be able to depend > upon the integrity of its staff members, and shouldn't have to blow > images up to the size of the World Trade Towers to see if the > photographer is screwing around. I agree -- to a point. I think the paper should be able to depend upon the integrity of its staff members too. But I also think that current digital technology provides too few safeguards to help people maintain that integrity and trust. The camera was a step forward compared to a pen and paper sketch. It records, more "faithfully" than a sketch artist, what it actually present. It is more difficult to "fake" something photographically than it is to draw something that isn't there. Photographic manipulation is certainly possible (the classic example being the old Soviet unions treatment of people who fell out of favor with the ruling party), but technically more difficult than digital manipulation. Digital photography, by the same token, is a step backwards. It is easier to digitally manipulate than it is to photographically manipulate. And it is harder to discover what, if any, manipulation has occurred. Regardless of intent on the part of the manipulator or publisher. M. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html