Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/07

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

Subject: [Leica] Photoshopping for Truth? (and a sneaky real estate FS Friday)
From: kanner at (Herbert Kanner)
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:49:07 -0700

After reading many of the responses to the original post, I find that 
I agree with Tina Manley and would like to explain why.

First, I cannot dispute Rabs' point, that no significant "lie" 
occurred, no political implications can be drawn, from the deletion 
of a person from the picture. In terms of the possible difference of 
mood--was he alone, was he accompanied--one is just nit picking.

So, why do I agree with Tina? It is precisely because it becomes a 
judgement call, because, as others have said, it has to be decided on 
a case by case basis. That is exactly the point! There will always be 
the borderline case, where there is strong difference of opinion as 
to whether the alteration of a picture does or does not change the 
meaning of the photographed incident. For this very reason, it is 
better to have a fixed rule: do not alter the content of a 
journalistic photograph.

Clearly, this should not be applied to the digital equivalent of 
dodging, which, in general, cannot change the meaning of the 
photograph in a news sense.

At the risk of going a bit off topic: I don't understand the 
prohibition by many journals of a technique whose name I can't 
remember, namely taking a rapid sequence of bracketing shots and 
reducing the result to one composite in order to cover a greater 
luminance range.

Herbert Kanner
kanner at

Do not meddle in the affairs of cats,
for they are subtle and will pee
on your computer!

Replies: Reply from mark at (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Photoshopping for Truth? (and a sneaky real estate FS Friday))