Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/04/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 07:17 PM 4/17/2007, you wrote: >I will have to spend some time pondering if removing a distraction >from a photo that does not alter the truthfulness of the image is >wrong. A removed set of stray legs or a telephone wire does not >seem to me as a way of changing the truth. Something to think about >for awhile.... An interesting article about truth in photographs: http://zonezero.com/magazine/articles/mraz/mraz01.html What do you think? Does previsualization mean that the photograph was manipulated subconsciously? I don't think so. I might imagine a photo that I would like to take of a family in Central America, but that would only mean that I would only look for situations to take that photo. I would never move people into position or change circumstances to make the photo happen when it wouldn't have without my being there. Moving people into position or suggesting situations or adding lights or manipulating photographs in the darkroom goes way beyond previsualization, to me, and would not be acceptable for documentary or news photographs. I think many so-called documentary photographs today should be reclassified as art photographs if the situations were manipulated or directed by the photographer. That is not documentary or news photography. Just my 2 cents. Tina Tina Manley, ASMP, NPPA http://www.tinamanley.com