[Leica] Photoshopping for Truth? (and a sneaky real estate FS Friday)

[gregj_lorenzo at hotmail.com (Greg Lorenzo)]

Just think if Photoshop existed 80 years ago Stalin would have no need for 
whomever provided his darkroom services. In fact his darkroom provider could 
just "disappear".

 

I see Uncle Joe's murderous process as somehow quite different from an 
editor's decision to remove a couple of people on Obama's beach who 
themselves should have no concern that they in fact could disappear one day.

 

Greg Lorenzo

Calgary, Canada
 
> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 23:18:46 -0400
> From: images at comporium.net
> To: lug at leica-users.org
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Photoshopping for Truth? (and a sneaky real estate FS 
> Friday)
> 
> For art photography, anything goes. You can add and subtract anything you
> want to improve the composition or illustrate your vision. For
> photojournalists, there are rules - codes of ethics. Absolutely nothing can
> be added or removed from the photo. Many photojournalists have been fired
> for manipulating photos - and they should be. You can find more about the
> code of ethics on NPPA's site:
> 
> http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics.html
> 
> One quote: "I do not think the public cares if it is a little lie or a big
> lie As far as they are concerned, once the shutter has been tripped and the
> *moment* has been captured on film, in the context of news, we no longer
> have the right to change the content of the photo in any way. Any change to
> a news photo - any violation of that *moment* - is a lie. Big or small, any
> lie damages your credibility."
> 
> Whether you are making OJ Simpson look more sinister by darkening his
> complexion, or straightening someone's teeth to make them look more
> presentable, putting Oprah's head on Ann-Margaret's body, adding more smoke
> to a war photo to make the bombing look worse, moving soldiers around to
> make a situation more confrontational - it doesn't matter. All of those
> have happened and they are all lies. The photo of Obama on the cover of the
> Economist is a lie. I can't understand how professional photographers can
> defend manipulation of the image in a news photo. It is wrong. And it is
> dangerous.
> 
> Tina
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Chris Crawford <
> chris at chriscrawfordphoto.com> wrote:
> 
> > If I'm getting paid, I don't care how they print it. I've sold stuff to a
> > lot of businesses and they ask things like is it ok to crop, tone,
> > colorize,
> > retouch, etc. Hell I don't care, send me my check. I'm not a journalist
> > though. I'm just an artist who earns his living licensing my work to
> > businesses, and selling prints to people that like art.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Chris Crawford
> > Fine Art Photography
> > Fort Wayne, Indiana
> > 260-424-0897
> >
> > http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio
> >
> > http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com My latest work!
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/6/10 9:52 PM, "Philip Forrest" <photo.forrest at earthlink.net> 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So Mark, do you care if an editor uses one of your images and removes
> > > two people in your work, potentially changing the impact along many
> > > axes in the eye of the viewer? What if it is not how you wanted the
> > > image presented?
> > >
> > > It IS better for the magazine cover,the way it was edited, but that way
> > > it was edited was also potentially very wrong. Unless one just cares
> > > about the dolla billz and not the truth or the historical record. In
> > > that case, 'shop away!
> > > Phil Forrest
> > >
> > >
> > >> Well there are degrees of altering photos and in the darkroom
> > >> photographers did it with every photo they have turned in for
> > >> decades. And In the case of the magazines like LIFE those images
> > >> would be drastically altered at that point. Everything smoothed out
> > >> and simplified. Nobody said a cross world about it but now that its
> > >> Photoshop instead of an airbrush in sombody hand its a huge moral
> > >> issue. Did that lady not being there distort the story? It was the
> > >> opinion apparently of the people in the magazine that the image was
> > >> more concise without her. I agree.
> > >>
> > >> [Rabs]
> > >> Mark William Rabiner
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Leica Users Group.
> > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Leica Users Group.
> > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
                                          
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3