Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/25

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] how to lie with a camera...
From: Mark Cohen <markc@binaryfaith.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 10:27:26 -0800 (PST)

Kyle,

What about photographers (would also fall under 2) who do multiple images
either on the neg or Ulesman who does multiple negs on a final print to
put a sky in a ceiling or somesuch..

Photographers have been altering "truth" photographically since day one.
(There was one photographer in the Civil War who "re-created" a scene for
the camera)

- -Mark


On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Kyle Cassidy wrote:

> fascinating discussion of photoshop and photographic "truth". wanted to get
> my 1 cent in --
>
> firstly, people have been lying with cameras long before photoshop -- this
> begins when a photographer decides to take a picture, is altered again by
> how the photographer takes the picture and even more by what a photo editor
> may decide to print -- it's entirely possible to send two photographers to a
> place (let's say israel) and take photographs which speak volumes to either
> side of the conflict. this is true in most any situation.
>
> i think we have at least three distict types of lying with a camera...
>
> 1) physical obfuscation (using photoshop to move the pyramids; adding a pair
> of bruno magli's to a photo of o.j. simpson, and remove UFO's from photos)
>
> 2) "classic" photo manipulation -- burning in the sky, the corners, to draw
> attention to a particular spot, darkening o.j.'s face
>
> 3) editorial misdirection -- fabrication through deciding what to show and
> what not to show.
>
> national geographic moved the pyramids which was a manipulation of fact.
> though time magazine's 1995 "man of the year" cover photo of newt gingrich
> comes to mind as an example of editorial politicizing:
> http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/1995/
> clearly an unflattering photo. the image of mr. gingrich, unshaved and
> looking tired, says something about him which may be "true" (at that
> fraction of a second he had that look on his face and didn't shave that
> morning) but may misrepresent the larger "truth" (he may be a fastidious
> shaver caught off guard on his way to the washroom, he may have been about
> to sneeze, or whatnot). most of us would not have selected that image of a
> client we were asked to photograph -- time, i think, was making some sort of
> statement in choosing it -- whatever that may be. i also recall u.s. news
> printing an extremely unflattering photo of paula jones several years back;
> awash in a sea of photographers grinning like she'd just won a hog calling
> contest, that could only have been chosen to suggest something about her
> personality.
>
> so ... as to photoshop ... it's a new world where pictures don't mean what
> they used to, but i think it is a logical progression....
>
> kc
> --
> 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