Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Perhaps. However that becomes a slightly different conversation. We seem to be discussing the gray areas, or degrees, of deception; as produced by photographic retouching or alteration methods. Weston saw the sensuality in peppers; used, selection, camera, light and composition and shared his thoughts, visually, on that subject. I'm all for using craft and art to bring beautiful people, places and things to our attention. I'm more concerned with the social and cultural importance of any particular informational deception than I am about deception "techniques" (of which photoshop is just one). I'd rather discuss where we "draw the line" socially, politically and culturally than where we draw the line in our use of photoshop. As previously stated who really cares if a caddy gets dropped out of a photo (especially when the caddy suggested it would improve the shot to remove him)? compared to airbrushing another two inches off (or on to) an already beautiful celebrity body with a result of increased anorexia (or cosmetic surgery) in our young female population? Adding or subtracting missiles from a news photo obviously (to me) has far more important implications than adding or subtracting caddies (from sports portraits). So, for me, it's about cultural implications and importance on a case by case basis; rather than "thou shalt not alter in photoshop, in these ways, ever." I welcome the creative use of tools to make powerful, socially useful statements; and deplore the creative use of tools to make powerful, socially harmful propaganda. How do we find and defend the lines between those two extremes? Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Jul 21, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Phil Swango wrote: > Totally agree. But you might as well include cameras, lighting and > make-up.