Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/05/15

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Photoshop dilemma
From: Darrell Jennings <>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 06:17:28 -0700 (PDT)

Ah yes, and next the "Holodeck" it real or is it
Memorex?  Any technology that can be used for good can
also be used for ill....

- --- "B. D. Colen" <> wrote:
> I sure care - not that that surprises you: not so
> much that it's a rewrite
> of history as that it is a really appalling
> cheapening of King's legacy.
> This is not like using a rock icon's song to sell
> cars, or the image of Fred
> Astair's dancing on the ceiling being used to sell
> vacuumed cleaners. This
> is, rather, using a film clip of the most important
> speech by the most
> prominent leader of the civil rights movement to
> sell the image of a
> corporation. And not only is it taking the speech
> totally out of context, it
> is doing something that we can assume, based on his
> record, King himself
> would never have done, or approved of.
> But I have to say that while I am a huge fan of
> King's - although I believe
> that to some degree his role in the movement was
> overblown - I am no fan of
> the King family for the way they have commercialized
> "the legacy" since his
> death.
> Martin Luther King, Jr., was and should always
> remain one of those rare
> individuals throughout history whose person, and
> legacy, belong to "the
> people," rather than to his family.
> But that's just my opinion.
> BUT...if the King thing bothers you, wait until you
> read what I'm sure will
> be the AP pickup - and everyone else's rereporting -
> of a story that ran in
> this a.m.'s Boston Globe. Worried about the
> photoshop alteration of still
> photos? Fagedaboutit! MIT researchers have "taught"
> a computer to produce
> absolutely believable video footage of people saying
> things they never said.
> In other words, they can put words in someone's
> mouth, show the footage to
> test subjects, and have the test subjects unable to
> tell the real footage
> from the doctored footage. At this point they can
> only do it with footage of
> people speaking directly to the camera - as the
> President does in one of his
> addresses ;-) - but they are sure they will be able
> to improve the
> technology to the point where the angle won't
> matter. What does all this
> mean? That in the very near future we will be unable
> to tell doctored video
> from real video, and if footage of, say, a
> Presidential candidate turns up
> with the candidate saying something embarrassing, we
> will never know whether
> it is real, or a "dirty trick."
> B. D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On
> Behalf Of George
> Lottermoser
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 7:42 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Photoshop dilemma
> (Adam
> Bridge)5/13/0211:47 AM
> > Thus cutting Lenin out of an
> > image breaks the one for one relationship with the
> original
> photograph. Or
> > moving a pyramid. Or adding several images from
> other sources.
> >
> > Once the one-for-one is lost I contend that the
> final work is
> no longer a
> > photograph. It's something else: a graphic art
> perhaps.
> Apparently the owners of the Martin Luther King
> estate have seen
> fit to sell his words as well as images of him - for
> advertising
> messages. So we can now seem him making the "famous
> speech" in a
> totally new context and environment and hear the
> words edited to
> new purpose. Personally I see this as a rewrite of
> history and
> without integrity. These rewrites will affect a new
> generation's
> perception of history. Does anyone care? I do. Sad
> way to make a
> profit.
> George
> --
> To unsubscribe, see
> --
> To unsubscribe, see

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