Re: [Leica] Cropping dilema

[Feli di Giorgio <feli2@earthlink.net>]

On Tuesday, Jul 29, 2003, at 15:49 US/Pacific, bdcolen wrote:

> I'm not trying to argue with you at all Feli, only offering you my
> responses to your questions.

I know, I appreciate your input.

> I was not in any way implying that because you don't make a living as a
> photojournalist you don't, shouldn't, wouldn't want to stick to the
> truth - I was simply pointing out that if the image is for
> non-journalism use, the standards are different. If you, as a creative
> artist, want to use Photoshop to, in effect, sandwich two negatives to
> make a statement with an image, that's your decision - go for it. If, 
> on
> the other hand, you want to stick to strict PJ standards, go for that.




>
> As to the tilting - I've said I have a problem with that.


>  I don't have a problem with cropping, as long as the cropping doesn't 
> change the
> "truth" of the image.

  I agree. A news photo should never be cropped to change it's meaning, 
although it probably happens more often than it should...


>  I'm sure there are those on the list who would not
> have a problem with the tilting, who might say 'well, wouldn't it be
> okay if he had tilted the camera? What's the dif?' And yes, tilting the
> camera is now a pretty common PJ trick. While I have done it once or
> twice, I'm inclined to think that what results from a tilted camera is
> an image that suggests the photographer was drunk or stumbling, but
> that's just me. ;-) But I see tilting the image in Photoshop, IF you 
> are
> going for truth, as beyond what is acceptable.

I see your point BD and that's why I have been racking my brain about 
this.
A news photo isn't necessarily about aesthetics (although many of the 
great PJ's certainly had the eye of an artist and were artists). It's 
about faithfully reporting/documenting a moment in time as it occurred. 
A news photo is a photographic record and doesn't have to be pretty. 
The only choice you have is to either print everything you shoot full 
frame and that's it or if you are going to crop/tilt you better damn 
well make sure that you aren't altering the 
content/meaning/circumstances and historical accuracy of the photo.

>
> And to then use PS to paint in sky and sidewalk is to further engage in
> deception, trying to fool your viewer into thinking that you tipped the
> camera.

Sounds ugly. I think you are right. Even if "spotting" or burning that 
photo only in the corner
doesn't alter the context, it still is adding something that wasn't 
there at the time that the photo was taken, which would be unacceptable 
in a news photo. I'm not exactly sure what the difference is between 
photojournalism and documentary photography. My guess would be that a 
PJ is interested in reporting the absolute truth, creating an accurate 
historic record of an event/time/person, where as a documentary 
photographer is more interested in capturing the essence of a 
location/event/person, which leaves him a little more artistic 
breathing room. So, it would be the difference between a journalist and 
a columnist?
Does a documentary photography have more "grey area" to play in? The 
rules for a PJ are pretty much written in stone.

> But again, this is something you're doing to please yourself - not meet
> the standards of an editor, publication, or profession. So if you will
> only be satisfied with the "truth" as you shot it, then you know what
> the answers to your questions require - and that is no manipulation
> beyond the usual burning and dodging and standard tonal adjustments.
>
> At least that's how I see it.
>
> Best
>
> B. D.


Thanks for your input. I didn't study journalism, so I'm not familiar 
with the rules and standards, but common sense and logic goes a long 
way in taking an educated guess here.


feli

- -------------------------------------------------------------------
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." -V.L.
feli2@earthlink.net

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html