Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/21

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: OT: The camera doesn't lie!
From: "B. D. Colen" <>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:57:11 -0400

There is of course room for any kind of manipulation one can dream up - and
that is in an image CLEARLY labled "Photo Illustration." And only in such an

B. D.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of jmilton
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 11:10 PM
> To:
> Subject: [Leica] Re: OT: The camera doesn't lie!
> >"Lying with photographs is more serious than lying with words, because
> >people believe that the camera cannot lie."
> >Think about about that for a moment in this day of computers, digital
> >cameras and photoshop.
> >Do you feel this is right or wrong?
> >ted
>  The most important asset our newspaper has is its credibility, and we
> struggle daily to maintain it.
>  Our policy that says we will not materially alter the content of a
> photo, and we interpret that to mean that digital burning, dodging,
> cloning out dust and scratches, correcting color, and contrast are
> allowed. Removing a reflection, or worse a Coke can (which happened at
> another newspaper-the photog was fired), or moving a pyramid (Nat. Geo.)
> are not.
>  Of course, since I first saw Photoshop, I assume that every advertising
> photo has been substantially altered. And I used to look at these photos
> and try to learn about lighting, composition, backgrounds. Not anymore.
>  In my line of work, we cannot afford to lie. But the line becomes more
> blurred every time one of our artists manipulates a photo and calls it a
> "photo illustration" in the outline.
>  I feel that there's a place where manipulation is OK, like in the
> allegorical, and powerful work of Jerry Uelsmann. If one is putting a
> photo on a wall and the goal is impact, art has never told the literal
> truth. There's a place where it's not acceptable - in a newspaper, news
> magazine, or journal. On the other hand, one could argue that if the
> subject is aware of the camera, the truth cannot be told.
> -Jack Milton
> -Jack Milton