Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/04/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In the Danish contest the same argument could be made for B&W images as well either converted RAW or as a negative. I would bet the same images submitted in B&W would not have created such an objectionable response. Over cooked in color is objectionable but not in B&W? A double standard then. Like you say this may be an emotional response to the digital takeover. I find the double standard to be somehow heavily related to perspective. We all have our perspective of a thing in color. We have no perspective in B&W except perhaps through the unconscious via dreams. Color represents our conscious perspective and B&W our unconscious perspective. It would be interesting to contrast the difference between conscious and unconscious perspective. The latter would fall along the lines of Freud and Jung as desires, fears, etc., but what the hell is conscious perspective; what we think is real, our sanity, our interaction with the world, or is it just our perception we have control? (this is Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger stuff) So manipulation of the conscious world (as represented by color images) would be objectionable if it was to threaten any of these concepts like reality control, sanity, and interaction. But not in the unconscious world because it is constantly being manipulated by the conscious world anyway so therefore no problem! At 02:51 PM 4/22/2009, you wrote: >The problem is as much a problem of perception rather than reality. > >Now mind you, I thought the photos from the Danish(?) contest were *way* >overcooked. And there is no excuse for adding or subtracting actual image >content, changing the color of Obama's swimsuit, or doing a film noir >number on O.J.'s face. But "gotcha" charges of photo manipulation have >gone way beyond that at times. > >Because the "Greedy S.O.B.'s" do what they do, newspaper and magazine >executives probably have boardroom discussions about how to get the public >to trust them again. The photo editor ends up explaining what can be done >in Photoshop to The Big Guy (or Gal), who hasn't a clue about the >nitty-gritty. Next thing you know, T.B.G. has ordered a policy of zero >tolerance for photo manipulation. Which includes stuff that have been >done in the darkroom for over a century. > >Fast forward, and some honest photographer gets "caught" dodging a face, >burning in a background, or balancing the color so that a photo looks like >what the photographer actually saw. Said photographer is pilloried, >disgraced, fired, made an example of. The public gets a scapegoat. >Management has "taken decisive action to correct an aggregious violation >and restore public trust." All is well. > >This atmosphere also gives jealous colleagues a way to discredit someone >who beat them to a story, or won a contest. Or for those of a particular >political stripe to discredit a photo that puts their point of view in a >bad light. The public have not been taught the subtleties, they are told >that the only question to ask is whether the photo was manipulated or not. > >Film and sensors impose their own version of reality on the scene. >Sometimes a bit of processing is required to make a photo look like what >we would have seen if we were there. Photographers are in an impossible >situation in the current climate. They have to be better than Caesar's >wife--not only beyond reproach, but beyond any possible appearance of >reproach--when they work in a dirty and imperfect real world. > >The real question is whether the journalist and the publication have >integrity or not. And whether the fact that tools can be abused is a good >reason to take away all the tools. > >--Peter > > >_______________________________________________ >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