Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/05/12

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] Photoshop dilemma
From: Darrell Jennings <>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 15:36:25 -0700 (PDT)

Isn't every attempt to express a point of view
propaganda on some level?  Every time we express an
opinion we are attempting to convince people of
something.  If you have integrity you try to express
your opinion with honesty, but even the best
journalists are accused regularly accused of bias. 

My point is that at least for purposes of discussing
photography at the broadest level we should not limit
our discussions to photo journalism.  It is too
difficult to draw the line.  What Photoshop options do
you allow before it becomes NOT a photograph?  

If it was taken with a Leica (or apparently a Leica
clone) isn't there room to discuss it here?  If I put
up photos for public viewing in this forum it is to
get input on composition, technical input, etc. 
Therefore I would attempt to use Photoshop or a
similar tool to do the best job possible of making a
picture that represents my skill for your comments. 
- --- George Lottermoser <> wrote:
> (Darrell
> Jennings)5/12/022:29 PM
> > don't see the difference between Photoshop and
> burning
> > and dodging. 
> If we're going to have this discussion, let us be a
> bit more
> specific. We can certainly agree that there's not
> much difference
> between burning and dodging in the darkroom or
> burning and
> dodging in PhotoShop. Or adjusting levels in
> PhotoShop and
> choosing the contrast of a paper in the darkroom.
> But this thread
> began with a question regarding changing a
> background - putting
> an individual and a machine in a space that they
> didn't occupy.
> In journalistic terms - a visual misrepresentation -
> a lie. In
> artistic terms - potentially a work of art. Big
> difference.
> > If you think the purpose of a photo is to somehow
> > convey truth, I think that battle was lost long
> ago. 
> > A photo, like the written word only conveys what
> the
> > photographer or writer wants to convey.  If that
> is
> > truth (what one hopes for in a photo journalist),
> then
> > great, 
> The questions around manipulation only have
> relevance if we're
> discussing journalism and/or documentary work. 
> > if not, the only question is do you like the
> > image?  Does it make you think or feel something
> that
> > the photographer wants you to think or feel. 
> Fair enough for expressive graphic art. Makes no
> sense in terms
> of journalistic, scientific, or documentary work.
> > If you are looking for "purity" in photography,
> then
> > why not require all photos to be taken by people
> with
> > no opinions or points of view of people with no
> Not sure anyone, before now, has suggested looking
> for "purity"
> (whatever that means) - simply honesty and integrity
> in forms of
> photography where the viewers expect such intentions
> from the
> photographers and images. To remain viable - such
> work - more and
> more will require notification of authenticity - as
> more and more
> visual communication will be about special effects
> and
> propoganda.
> George
> --
> To unsubscribe, see

Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
- --
To unsubscribe, see