Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Absolutely, but the philosophy of what is and is not reality in the viewfinder in front of the artist is not what is in question. We can keep altering photos all we like and all of a sudden Child Protective Services won't have any kids with visible marks from abuse and neglect. Get the right person in charge of media and the images of concentration camp liberation could be conveniently altered to meet the needs of an editor or someone more powerful. But then again, that was only a portion of reality as curated by an artist with a camera... Product photography is great, alter it all you want, but when something is supposed to be news and the alteration of a photo changes its power, political and emotional meaning, or has the potential to change that meaning, the photo should remain unchanged. Phil Forrest On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 22:44:22 -0400 Ric Carter <ricc at embarqmail.com> wrote: > This is fine so long as we all realize that the original, > unphotoshopped photo was not reality--it was a view of a portion of > reality as curated by an artist with a camera. Altering an image > should not be confused with the altering of reality. Reality is > largely subjective. > > ric > > > On Jul 6, 2010, at 10:39 PM, Philip Forrest wrote: > > > Maybe I'm in the wrong for wanting an image to remain unaltered as a > > part of the historical record. > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information