[Leica] Crazy

[steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour)]

On Mar 6, 2010, at 1:07 AM, Peter Klein wrote:

> Some interesting discussion on the incident here:
> http://www.petapixel.com/2010/03/03/world-press-photo-disqualifies-winner/
> 
> It is all well and good to be concerned about the integrity of photography 
> and journalism. But "rules" designed to protect that integrity have become 
> ends in themselves, and they're turning photojournalism and photo contests 
> into a game of "gotcha."  If we can catch someone doing something that was 
> perfectly acceptable in the darkroom days, we can take away their 
> reputation, and feel oh so good about having caught a rogue.  By today's 
> standards, Gene Smith would have been quickly drummed out of the 
> profession. And wouldn't that have purified the integrity of photography?
> 
> What really matters is the intent of the photographer.  If he was 
> clarifying things by removing a distracting element that was irrelevant to 
> the main content of the image, he is not a liar or a rogue. But the 
> "rules" say he is. Even though the photo was in the features category, not 
> hard news.
> 
> It is far easier to have a blanket rule than to evaluate things in 
> context, and it is easy and convenient to let the rule become a substitute 
> for the integrity it is supposed to protect.  I understand the slippery 
> slope argument. But some of the most interesting work can happen on the 
> edge of the slope, and I'm troubled by the glee with which some exorcise 
> those who stick a toe over that edge.
> 
> I agree that under the rules of the contest, the photo is ineligible. But 
> I'm troubled by the premise of the rule itself.  It is just as easy to lie 
> with a dodge, burn or crop.

agree, 

while they are dotting the T here and crossing the i,  

what about truth, honesty, directness...?  They missed the boat...

everyone has their own agenda....in photography, daily life, politics, 
advertisements....

and they are focussed on removal of a wayward digit...


talk about missing the forest, for the trees...


Steve

> 
> --Peter
> 
>> It says "Damon Runyon" because that's what the original Damon Runyon 
>> portrayed. But he wrote about actual scenes - in color with lots of 
>> people milling around. He didn't lie or misrepresent what he saw. Neither 
>> did this photographer. Tina 
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:02 PM, John Edwin Mason <profmason at 
>> yahoo.com>wrote: > >/ The contest photo says "Damon Runyon." The reality 
>> of the actual event was/ >/ "Family Circus." And that is a gross 
>> misrepresentation. It is a lie./ > >/ Sure, all photos lie. It's a 
>> favorite cliche and one that I pull out in my/ >/ teaching all the time. 
>> What we're really saying is that some degree of/ >/ subjectivity is 
>> inevitable. That's why we have standards to keep things/ >/ under 
>> control./ > >/ --John/ > > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information