🚀 go-pugleaf

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

   Path: brunix!uunet!wuarchive!mit-eddie!xn.ll.mit.edu!xn!tonyb
   From: tonyb@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke)
   Newsgroups: misc.headlines,rec.photo,sci.electronics
   Date: 30 Apr 91 17:21:58 GMT
   References: <5110@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <5130@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
	   <10034@plains.NoDak.edu>
   Sender: usenet@xn.ll.mit.edu
   Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
   Lines: 77
   Xref: brunix misc.headlines:26759 rec.photo:19751 sci.electronics:18652

   In article <10034@plains.NoDak.edu> stinnett@plains.NoDak.edu (M.G. Stinnett) writes:

      In article <5130@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov writes:
      >read out of a computer memory twice. The implication: the age of
      >computer-processed news photographs has definitely arrived.

      So why not mention the cover photo of last week's Time? The one where
      they used a computer to put bar codes on the nose of the fighter
      planes?

   Actually, Time processes lots of their covers.  My favorite one (I witnessed
   this in person, was several years back, right after the Chernobyl accident.

   Let me make a short story long...  (If you're in a hurry, skip to
   the bottom paragraphs).

   [...]

   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 don't think you're being a weenie, but I do wonder why you think
that photography (even photojournalism) is anything but an artist's
conception?  I know this idea is verging on the theoretical and can
get as messy as arguments over religion, but it is an important point
to me.  I'm not a pro photographer, nor am I a photojournalist.  But I
do feel that any photograph is in some way, however subtle, chosen for
a reason, and in this way, it is a subjective act on the part of the
photographer to represent something.  There is no "true" photograph
that accurately represents the essence of some object or situation.

   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.

I don't think that photojournalism will die - we'll always be in need
of pictures to show us tidbits of the world around us.  It's
rediculous to predict that non-film media will kill the
photojournalist.  His or her job may change somewhat in a technical
way, but the essence of it will remain the same.  This world loves
pictures, especially those parts of the world that publish huge
amounts of journalism.

   Done Fuming For Now,

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


-Ken 
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
-ken herndon-  kph@cs.brown.edu          uunet!brunix!kph
               st601698@brownvm.bitnet   kph@browncs.bitnet

address: po box 5636 brown university providence ri 02912
-----------------------------------------------------------