Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/04/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Absolutely so. The subjectivity begins when the assignment is handed to the photographer, "cover this." and continues with what: film we put in the camera point the camera at choice of lens flash or no flash how many shots we take to cover the story how we develop the film crop or print the negatives and then which the picture editor ultimately chooses the story editor chooses as a headline and caption (and if theirs a written story to accompany the photo(s) what the reporter has to say. Truth? Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Apr 22, 2009, at 6:44 PM, Greg Rubenstein wrote: > Maybe I've missed something in this thread, but even back when I was a > photojournalist weren't we marketing and publishing our vision/points > of view -- as well as that of our editors? Weren't we the > temperamental "artistes" and consciences of the hard-boiled newsroom. > (Remember the TV show, "Lou Grant," the photographer, "Animal"?) > > We shot and used leading lines; light, dramatic or flat; to show the > subject, story, event as we saw it or, perhaps, as our editor, art > director or publisher may have instructed us. Or, given the number of > shots we'd submit, they chose the one that best fit their points of > view. > > In the darkroom, we dodged, burned and balanced contrast and color as > best we could to further help viewers see what we saw, or what the > editors and art directors wanted us to show. Remember the heavy > burning at the edges so stylish back in the 70s? Again, the choice of > what to run was often someone else's -- and may not have quite > represented the event though it was "honest" in the sense that it was > something we saw. > > I even remember the days of photo illustrations, having used Exacto > knives, multiple exposures and such to created these images myself -- > and CLEARLY LABELING them as such at the start of a caption and in > credit lines. And, besides, even with Photoshop, who today can create > the magical photo images/illustrations people such as Jerry Uelsmann > and Michael Tcherevkov (check both spellings) turned out? > > While Photoshop as a tool has made it easier for people -- > photographers, editors, artists and such -- to mislead and cheat, I > find our caterwauling about purity a bit disturbing and hypocritical > in light of what we have done -- and do -- when shooting film, when > processing film and when printing negatives. > > I do not excuse adding missiles, intensifying smoke, changing the > color of swimming trunks or putting one person's head on another body, > but I must wonder if my take on an event by the angle from which I > shot, the light I preferred (or added with a flash), the editor's > instructions I followed, or burning I did is a heck of a lot more > honest and pure than what we see now. > > A case in point, though I cannot find the URL, was an article in Photo > District News a few years back that, essentially, asked whether > demonstrations caused photographers of if photographers caused > demonstrations. A photo of Palestinian demonstrators lobbing Molotov > Cocktails was shown from two angles. The widely published photo showed > members of an angry mob throwing homemade bombs seemingly at targets. > A shot from another angle showed a gaggle of photographers, and > smiling (maybe even amused) bystanders watching the photographers and > "the mob" throwing the cocktails into a rubble-strewn lot. Both photos > were accurate in what they showed, but how accurate was the message > sent in that example? > > The issue we've been discussing and will continue to discuss is a heck > of a lot bigger than Photoshop. Photoshop, more partisan people > (photographers included) and agenda-drive publications simply make it > easier to cheat now than before. And, as before, the cheaters are > generally outed -- maybe even more quickly today because of Photoshop > and a technically savvy viewing public -- but not before the > credibility of "honest" photographers and others is damaged. > > End of rant. > > Greg Rubenstein > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information