RE: [Leica] Re: Photoshop dilemma

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Could it be that labeling buys us an approximation of honesty?

All of this was less of an issue before the advent of Photoshop. But it is
now so easy for anyone to make major alterations in a photograph, that those
who care about the integrity of photography should insist that altered
photos be labeled as such.

Bottom line - you can give me 8 zillion different examples of "art"
photography and ask, "is this what you mean?" or "should that be labeled?
But I believe you know exactly what I'm saying and why I'm saying it. I am
not arguing against using photography as an artistic medium - only asking
that when it is used that way, it be labeled as such. Otherwise we are
forced to reassess what photography is, and what value it has.

B. D.

B. D.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Eric
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 2:27 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] Re: Photoshop dilemma


B.D:

>I have to disagree. When we present a "photograph" on the LUG we should be
>presenting just that - not a photo illustration. If we want to show people
a
>photo illustration, we should make it clear - as Sonny did - that that is
>what we are showing them. Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with photo
>illustrations; I just want them clearly labeled as such.

Why?  I can understand that if we're presenting an image as a pictorial
history of what happened, but if we're talking about photography as art,
what's it matter?

If I mount my Leica on a tripod and take a time exposure so that I blur out
people and only record the background, should I label that as an
illustration rather than a photograph?

I don't see what labeling buys us.  Except room for more confusion.  :)


Eric
- --
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