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: Darrell Jennings <>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 20:00:31 -0700 (PDT)

Why should they be "labeled as such" and who says "we"
expect to see what the camera captured. I don't. I
expect to see what the photographer produced in the
final product that he or she wants us to see. If "we"
are trying to produce ONLY journalistic photos for
this group then I grossly misunderstand the purpose of
the list. 

If the purpose of explaining the photoshop details is
to help enlighten us so that we can learn more about
how to use Photoshop and other tools effectively then
I think it makes sense and ought to be up to the
photographer to decided what is and is not appropriate
to explain. Otherwise how do you draw the line on what
does and doesn't require a disclaimer?  And why, in
this forum, would we care?  

- --- Mike Durling <> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
> --
> To unsubscribe, see

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