Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]BD Arguing with the apologist Filippone is about as useless as arguing with Austin about the spelling of "lens". BTW, should we call it "Photoshoplifting"? Jerry bdcolen wrote: > Frank, I just don't understand how you can not 'get' this - > > First, Jerry Uelsman is an ART photographer - his work has less than > nothing to do with this discussion. I would even go so far as to argue > that his work is not photography, but that's another discussion > entirely. > > What we are talking about here is a photographer who failed to get the > powerful shot he hoped to get "constructing" that powerful shot from two > mediocre images, and then passing off the resulting construction as a > photo he took, rather than as an illustration he made. What he did was > dishonest - to his editors, and to the readers of the paper. And that > journalistic dishonesty, rather than violating some technical rule, is > what got him fired. > > As you point out, photographers have long burned, dodged, and cropped - > and that has been considered a legitimate part of the photographic > process. Similarly, photographers burn, crop, and dodge using Photoshop. > But in this case, there was no image to burn, dodge or crop. THE > PHOTOGRAPHER DID NOT TAKE THE PHOTOGRAPH HE SENT TO HIS EDITORS - HE > CONSTRUCTED IT FROM ELEMENTS FROM TWO OTHER PHOTOS. What about that > don't you understand? > > I'm beginning to think that the reason you either don't get this, or > want to argue about it, is that you are so convinced that all media, and > all journalists, are such lying scum that you are unable to process the > idea that there are standards, and that people get fired for violating > them. And if that's the case, this discussion is pointless. ;-) > > B. D. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Frank > Filippone > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 12:50 PM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: RE: [Leica] fired for photoshopping > > Ever seen Jerry Uelsman's ( sp?) work? Pretty amazing manipulation. > > There are 2 issues here.... altering an image, and getting fired. The > getting fired part is most likely an issue of following commands from > your boss. I don;t see a way out of that position. If you break a > written rule, you deserve the consequences you get. If that kills your > career, ditto. You deserve the consequences you get. > > The altering an image, using the logic that it is perceived that images > are "the truth" is sort of akin to believing all you read in the paper > because it is written down, or words spoken through the radio ( Case in > point is the current PR being spoken by the Iraqi Information Minister > that the US is getting nowhere in the war in Iraq) . That position I > find naive. It may be that the average reader of the paper DOES indeed > believe what he reads/sees. That would justify the position of > non-manipulation in some minds. However, I can not justify why a > written word journalist or the editorial staff of a paper can apply 2 > standards to the same paper. ( OK BD, I give in on the advertisers > telling the truth.. if required, there would be no advertising!) > Cropping an image in the darkroom, cropping an image in Photoshop, > adding/deleting elements through dodging, adding/deleting elements throu > Photoshop...I do not see the difference. > > In the "old days", did the photojournalists actually submit printed > photos to their editors, or did they submit FILM, from which the editors > woould select images, cropping, etc? Could this be the basis for the > double standard? > > I do like the idea that altered images be so marked, and maybe, given > the abilities the papers' have through the Internet, they could posst > all 3 images, so the reader could make his own conclusion about the > "story" the picture tells. > > Frank Filippone > red735i@earthlink.net > > To do nothing in Photoshop > that he wouldn't do in a wet darkroom. > > -- > 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 - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html