Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/04/22

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

Subject: [Leica] Photoshop vs Journalism
From: chs2018 at med.cornell.edu (Chris Saganich)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:39:48 -0400
References: <200904221149.BPC68074@rg5.comporium.net> <49EED2ED.13636.3A5EEE@leica.rcmckee.com> <49EF2546.7000407@tele2.fr>

I believe photographs exist...I have many adorning my walls.  As for the 
contents, well, if one is looking to convey one absolute truth about the 
world, or life; or uncover some sort of universal meaning, then they were 
never to be believed...unless you believe in fairy's...or miracles.  If 
your attempting to  convey a perspective or interpretation of some aspect 
of the world or life, then manipulation doesn't matter.  So is perspective 
and interpretation totally devoid of universal meaning and absolute 
truth?  How absurd is this life?

At 10:10 AM 4/22/2009, you wrote:


>R. Clayton McKee wrote:
>
>>Quoth the Tina Manley :
>>
>>
>>
>>>Nobody will ever believe photographs again.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Read the comments (if you can stomach them.)
>>
>>The viewers already don't believe photographs (which is probably 
>>realistic, in today's publishing world) but, even more frightening, the 
>>majority don't seem to care.  Welcome to 1984, revised for the marketing 
>>era.
>>
>>
>
>Unfortunately this phenomenon is not new I'm afraid.
>Believing is by essence subjective.
>PR people and politicians know that better than others.
>For instance, what if I don't believe these are faked :
>http://www.lafabriquedelinfo.fr/component/content/article/133-lnles-journalistes-sont-victimes-du-mythe-de-la-photographie-qsans-retoucheqnr?showall=1
>http://tinyurl.com/c3hr7y
>I'm absolutely confident the first one isn't, I can't tell you why. ;-)
>
>Now, if the result is what matters as we often state here, I wonder if the 
>limits of 'post-production' are not all in the viewers' minds, and beliefs.
>On the other hand, a photograph being the result of a long personal and 
>technical selection process, equating it with a truthful representation of 
>what actually is or was, is simply a dramatic mistake.
>The rest of it is left open for beliefs, or ignorance.
>Amiti?s
>Philippe
>
>
>>--
>>
>>
>>R. Clayton McKee                           http://www.rcmckee.com
>>Photojournalist                               rcmckee at rcmckee.com
>>P O Box 571900                           voice/fax   713/783-3502
>>Houston, TX 77257-1900                   cell phone #  on request
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Leica Users Group.
>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

Chris Saganich MS, CPH
Senior Physicist, Office of Health Physics
Weill Medical College of Cornell University
New York Presbyterian Hospital
chs2018 at med.cornell.edu
http://intranet.med.cornell.edu/research/health_phys/
Ph. 212.746.6964
Fax. 212.746.4800
Office A-0049


Replies: Reply from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Photoshop vs Journalism)
Reply from nod at bouncing.org (Philip Clarke) ([Leica] Photoshop vs Journalism)
In reply to: Message from images at comporium.net (Tina Manley) ([Leica] Photoshop vs Journalism)
Message from leica at rcmckee.com (R. Clayton McKee) ([Leica] Photoshop vs Journalism)
Message from philippe.amard at tele2.fr (Philippe AMARD) ([Leica] Photoshop vs Journalism)