Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/04/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Sorry, Tina, the forum remark was more in jest and as a comment to how there are so many ways of looking at the problem. I should have put a winkie thing there. I am enjoying the discussion very much. This is hardly a new discussion. Ansel Adams, that Rocks 'n' Trees photographer, was criticized for spotting out a whitewashed "LP" from the hillside in his 1944 Winter Sunrise. The students of Lone Pine High School put it there to show school spirit. In Examples, Adams states: "I have been criticized by some for doing this, but I am not enough of a purist to perpetuate the scar and thereby destroy -- for me, at least -- the extraordinary beauty and perfection of the scene." One could argue that his work was journalism since his express purpose was to influence politics and change public opinion in order to preserve the environment. Is making the pictures more beautiful than the hills really are therefor dishonest and an offense to journalistic integrity? Do the ends justify the means? The practice is just easier now from a technical standpoint, and perhaps therefore more prevalent. The NPPA ethics rule cited by the ToledoBlade editor states not to change the journalistic content -- but he then goes on with the assumption that the leg amputation does so, without discussing why. No one seems to be talking about what that means. I don't see why the word "journalistic" is there if the standard is no alteration at all. That's the Lawyer in me. (In law school we were told that there is no sentence in the English Language cannot be made ambiguous by a good Lawyer.) In legal interpretation, it would be assumed the word "journalistic" must be interpreted to modify or limit "content" if it is there at all, as an interpretation that gives meaning to the word is favored over one that does not. The praying ballplayers' scene was obviously posed - by the coach if not by the photographers -- I'm not saying that's bad -- they wanted to send the message that they were remembering their lost friends. Otherwise they would have prayed in the locker room instead of in a neat circle in front of the signs for a nice photo op. That's a good thing. But why fire the photographer over it??? He's not misleading anyone as to what took place at that event, and it is a better picture that is more enjoyable to look at. To me, misleading as to what took place at the event is what would constitute changing the journalistic content. Even the competitor's picture with the legs appears to have enhanced contrast. The Editor was obviously embarrassed by his competitors and felt he had to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy to regain credibility. The only image I have seen in this discussion that I think inaccurately represents an event is the English soldier picture, and that is subject to interpretation as to whether one thinks that he appears to be menacing the civilian carrying the children. The original frame shows he, and the civilians, were clearly looking at something off-frame at the time, and that is ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation in the altered photo. An aspect is the expectation of literal accuracy from a photo. If any of these images were sketches or drawings, none of these would have been questioned. Remember when newspapers had to send sketch artists to courtrooms? No one would have questioned whether they left out the bailiff standing behind the witness, or whether the judge looked more bored than he was depicted. If it had been a sketch of the soldier, no one wold be saying, here's another picture and he was never threatening that guy." And as far as video cams are concerned, I wholeheartedly agree that there would be a tremendous loss to the artistic side of journalism, and I'm sure there will be substantial image processing since even a 10800 high def image frame is only 1 or 2 mp. Is the argument for video cams, in part, that still photos are unreliable and subject to misinterpretation? Why wouldn't it be just as easy to manipulate? The videocam thing is probably underlying a cost savings aspect, and rationalizing a journalistic reason for it -- why send a still photographer as well? (Like saying we're going after WMD's instead of oil, but that is one for the Forum!) Tom On Apr 20, 2007, at 2:20 PM, Tina Manley wrote: > At 04:56 PM 4/20/2007, you wrote: >> This is giving me a headache. Send it to the forum!!!!!!! >> >> Tom > > No! It's still about photography. The forum is for off-topic > subjects and Leicas have been used for photojournalism since the > beginning of time. Photojournalism is going through tremendous > changes since digital appeared on the scene. The latest trend > being talked about on the NPPA list(National Press Photographer's > Association) is the use of video cameras for all photojournalism. > Since most newspapers now have a website, it is more efficient to > just send photographer out with a video camera and, if they need > stills for the actual paper newspaper, they will grab a still from > the video footage. That is the norm today in photojournalism. > Instead of the decisive moment we have the decisive hour or two > from which to pick and choose our moment. > > I think a still photo, taken by someone who recognizes a decisive > moment, is more effective than any grab shot from a video stream. > I think there is a totally different mindset when shooting video - > different angles, different concerns about sound, different > connection with the subject. And verticals are not an option. I'm > a dinosaur, unfortunately. > > Tina > > Tina Manley, ASMP, NPPA > http://www.tinamanley.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information