Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/05

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

Subject: [Leica] Crazy
From: jsmith342 at gmail.com (Jeffery Smith)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:03:51 -0600
References: <622400.51933.qm@web111720.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <C85EAC0E-2D0C-4B65-8CEF-86DC7FFAD127@mac.com> <eb6799211003051253w47d16e7ex7d0db02ed3276cda@mail.gmail.com> <478F2DC7-FEC7-44F0-A962-7724C2E8C68B@mac.com> <80E82F6B-7AFA-47B3-9790-954E2856D5F5@gmail.com> <F5C12024-99F5-4DAD-835A-F8C9991FA1A7@mac.com> <73301d6b1003051356r7da442c2w9a3923b178aefbac@mail.gmail.com>

Time magazine stepped over the line when they gave OJ Simpson a nasty 5:00 
shadow on his mug shot. Sure, O.J. is a scumbag, but trying to make him look 
more villainous was out of line. Airbrushing out a shoe is even less serious 
that "healing" a pimple on a person's face with the healing tool.

Jeffery


On Mar 5, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Tina Manley wrote:

> When you put it that way, I agree completely, but the problem is in 
> deciding
> who will say whether the photograph steps over the line.  The manipulation
> of this photo does seem to fit within the guidelines of the NPPA:
> http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics.html
> <http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics.html>But
> this contest was for the World Press which might have different guidelines.
> I still think about Patrick Schneider who was fired from the Charlotte
> Observer and lost the photographer of the year award for adding saturation
> to the colors in a photo.
> 
> Tina
> 
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:37 PM, George Lottermoser <imagist3 at mac.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> I don't think there's any corruption going on
>> either by the photographer or the competition.
>> 
>> They're simply taking a "rule" to its ridiculous extreme;
>> without using common sense or knowledge of the the history of the craft;
>> not to mention the art.
>> 
>> The rule intends to eliminate intentional, significant visual lies and
>> fraud.
>> In its wake we lose the reasonable, ethical use of the current tools of 
>> our
>> craft.
>> 
>> To pose the question in this case seems reasonable.
>> "Does this photograph step over the line of journalistic or documentary
>> ethics?"
>> The decision of "yes" seems to me unreasonable.
>> 
>> At a simpler, superficial level:
>> "does this photograph break our silly rule?"
>> okay "yes."
>> case closed.
>> 
>> Sad - because the "finished" photograph worked - full of feeling, strong
>> and relevant.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> George Lottermoser
>> george at imagist.com
>> http://www.imagist.com
>> http://www.imagist.com/blog
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
>> 
>> On Mar 5, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Steve Barbour wrote:
>> 
>> it may be that the corruption lies in the competition, not the photograph.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Tina Manley, ASMP
> www.tinamanley.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



In reply to: Message from profmason at yahoo.com (John Edwin Mason) ([Leica] Crazy)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Crazy)
Message from richard at imagecraft.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] Crazy)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Crazy)
Message from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] Crazy)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Crazy)
Message from images at comporium.net (Tina Manley) ([Leica] Crazy)