[Leica] integrity ?

[ricc at mindspring.com (Ric Carter)]

On Apr 18, 2007, at 12:02 AM, Adam Bridge wrote:

> But Ric, it's in the boundary conditions that we really test theories
> and determine what is real and what is not. By exploring them we
> require ourselves to deal with the gray area - something "we"
> (speaking as an American) are loath to do. It's the little choices,
> made repeatedly, changed, extended, that lead from truth to
> interpretive fiction.
>

Talking about it may help us develop a sense of it, but I don't see  
how we can ever draw an honest definition of it. It will, in the end  
be a personal opinion. There is no edge

> For the news we need to demand accuracy and a lack of manipulation.
> Once we give way then it's back to H. G. Well's "When anything is
> possible, nothing is interesting." When we don't know what is true,
> unmanipulated, who can trust it? We have enough reasons not to trust
> in things as it stands already.
>
> To me Tina has the right of it - you just don't manipulate the
> situation for the sake of a good image - not if you're making news.
>

So, tell me how you can make any picture without there being a  
manipulation of "the truth."


> Perhaps it's a trip to late night in the dorm - but  I think it's
> really more. Today we work these issues with still photography but
> video is ready for these same questions. We have to ask them and
> remind the photojournalists behind the lens of the need for truth and
> accuracy.
>

I never said it was unimportant, only impossible.

Anyone looking for the boundary line may as well be debating, "What  
is truth?"

But, I guess we are, and that is exactly my point about it being  
noodling.

ric

> Adam