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] Re: Photoshop dilemma
From: "Mike Durling" <>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:40:14 -0400
References: <>

A lot of what we see published these days for magazine illustration,
advertising, and sometimes editorial use is 'shopped and never labeled.  I
like to assume that journalistic photos are still honest but I really don't
know.  The line has been crossed already and a photo can be considered
honest only if an honest person says it is.

That being said, we have an expectation that the photos posted here
represent what the camera captured.  Any gross manipulation ought to be
labelled as such.

Mike D

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "B. D. Colen" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 3:05 PM
Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Photoshop dilemma

> 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
> 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.

- --
To unsubscribe, see

In reply to: Message from "B. D. Colen" <> (RE: [Leica] Re: Photoshop dilemma)