[Leica] Photoshop vs Photojournalism

[nod at bouncing.org (Philip Clarke)]

I find it very interesting that "Photoshop" monopolizes the market so
massively, I am surprised they were allowed to buy Macromedia, since it
did have a bitmap editing program.

Regardless, a few days ago Princess Eugenie was photographed in a Start
spangled banner swimming costume. On the two competing front pages I saw
side by side, she appeared slimmer in one of them, I don't think they
were photoshopped (it's even a verb now), just fractionally different
angles. The camera lies, the politicians lie, the evidence presented to
honest photographers could be a lie, the PR agencies lie about whom is
dating whom, and an honest Paparazzo takes the required shot. It'd
probably save time and money (renting of private villas, hotels, leaking
the info to the press and the location of "the couple" etc... to set up
the shot) if the PR agencies just photoshopped the stars together, in
fact there's a business idea, I hereby lay the foundations of a business
service to PR companies, an agency shall be founded to provide the
gossip magasines and the National Enquirer specifically with forged
photos of celebrities, it'll make a bundle.

But then what is the difference between photoshopping two people
together in ome image, compared to having them on opposite sides of a
magazine with the words "Brad and Angelina in Love Romp"?
Photojournalism covers a large field, I feel that as a group (and like
the judges in the original competition), we are confused between
photojournalism and only taking pictures that document unequivocal
events. I think we may need a dictionary to clarify the definition.


Greg Rubenstein wrote:
> Maybe I've missed something in this thread, but even back when I was a
> photojournalist weren't we marketing and publishing our vision/points
> of view -- as well as that of our editors? Weren't we the
> temperamental "artistes" and consciences of the hard-boiled newsroom.
> (Remember the TV show, "Lou Grant," the photographer, "Animal"?)
> 
> We shot and used leading lines; light, dramatic or flat; to show the
> subject, story, event as we saw it or, perhaps, as our editor, art
> director or publisher may have instructed us. Or, given the number of
> shots we'd submit, they chose the one that best fit their points of
> view.
> 
> In the darkroom, we dodged, burned and balanced contrast and color as
> best we could to further help viewers see what we saw, or what the
> editors and art directors wanted us to show. Remember the heavy
> burning at the edges so stylish back in the 70s? Again, the choice of
> what to run was often someone else's -- and may not have quite
> represented the event though it was "honest" in the sense that it was
> something we saw.
> 
> I even remember the days of photo illustrations, having used Exacto
> knives, multiple exposures and such to created these images myself --
> and CLEARLY LABELING them as such at the start of a caption and in
> credit lines. And, besides, even with Photoshop, who today can create
> the magical photo images/illustrations people such as Jerry Uelsmann
> and Michael Tcherevkov (check both spellings) turned out?
> 
> While Photoshop as a tool has made it easier for people --
> photographers, editors, artists and such -- to mislead and cheat, I
> find our caterwauling about purity a bit disturbing and hypocritical
> in light of what we have done -- and do -- when shooting film, when
> processing film and when printing negatives.
> 
> I do not excuse adding missiles, intensifying smoke, changing the
> color of swimming trunks or putting one person's head on another body,
> but I must wonder if my take on an event by the angle from which I
> shot, the light I preferred (or added with a flash), the editor's
> instructions I followed, or burning I did is a heck of a lot more
> honest and pure than what we see now.
> 
> A case in point, though I cannot find the URL, was an article in Photo
> District News a few years back that, essentially, asked whether
> demonstrations caused photographers of if photographers caused
> demonstrations. A photo of Palestinian demonstrators lobbing Molotov
> Cocktails was shown from two angles. The widely published photo showed
> members of an angry mob throwing  homemade bombs seemingly at targets.
> A shot from another angle showed a gaggle of photographers, and
> smiling (maybe even amused) bystanders watching the photographers and
> "the mob" throwing the cocktails into a rubble-strewn lot. Both photos
> were accurate in what they showed, but how accurate was the message
> sent in that example?
> 
> The issue we've been discussing and will continue to discuss is a heck
> of a lot bigger than Photoshop. Photoshop, more partisan people
> (photographers included) and agenda-drive publications simply make it
> easier to cheat now than before. And, as before, the cheaters are
> generally outed -- maybe even more quickly today because of Photoshop
> and a technically savvy viewing public -- but not before the
> credibility of "honest" photographers and others is damaged.
> 
> End of rant.
> 
> Greg Rubenstein
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information