Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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