🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <TONYB.91Apr30132158@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu> tonyb@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke) writes:

[examples of photographic manipulation by Time magazine and others deleted]
 
>  Perhaps I'm being a weenie, but I think photojournalists are making a
>  serious mistake by allowing their images to be manipulated in this
>  way.  They may sell better in the short run, but I think it will
>  damage the field irreparably.  The manipulated Time cover was much
>  better looking and had more impact post-airbrushing than before, but
>  it was an artist's conception, not a photograph!  I think anything
>  that blurs the distinction between true photojournalism and the
>  National Enquirer's "Saddam Hussein Wears Women's Clothing!"-type
>  pasteups is a crime, and a disservice to straight photographers.

I disagree.  I think the purpose of a photojournalistic photograph,
like any other photograph, is to communicate with the person who
looks at the photograph.  Often, as you say, the manipulated photo
has more impact, the viewer is not distracted by bad composition
and can give all of his or her attention to the main theme of the
photo.  However, there has to be some ideal to which the photojournalist
will strive and I think some of the photos in the National Enquirer, for
example, are the antithesis of this ideal.  Some types of manipulation can
really improve the message content of a photograph, others destroy its
authenticity.
 
>  We are very close to having commercially available scanning and
>  film-output technology that operates at better-than-film-grain
>  resolution.  At that point, photojournalism will be dead if the
>  public isn't convinced that responsible publications will make no
>  use of the technology in any way that could affect the journalistic
>  content of an image.

As you say, it depends on how the technology is used, its the same with
nuclear energy, TELEVISION, genetic engineering, and any of a thousand other
technologies.  Will they be used responsibly and thus improve life and
society?  Or will they be generally abused, leading to a degradation in
the perception of the usefulness of those technologies?  I am optimistic,
I think there are many responsible people working for the serious journals
and that this technology will be a boon to the system.

>  Tony Berke (tonyb@juliet.ll.mit.edu)

 -Dyer                   lytle@noao.edu

-- 
Dyer Lytle, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, 602-323-4136
UUCP: {arizona,decvax,ncar}!noao!lytle or uunet!noao.edu!lytle
Internet: lytle@noao.edu        SPAN/HEPNET: 5356::LYTLE or DRACO::LYTLE