🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <KPH.91May1230920@unnamed.cs.brown.edu> kph@cs.brown.edu (Kenneth Paul Herndon) writes:
>In article <TONYB.91Apr30132158@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu> tonyb@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke) writes:
>   In article <10034@plains.NoDak.edu> stinnett@plains.NoDak.edu (M.G. Stinnett) writes:
>
>   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.

I agree that all journalists slant their stories to some degree. Some
much more than others. But an unretouched photo does show the scene
the same way you would see it in person if you were looking from the
same vantage point. That vantage point may have been chosen specifically
to hide some detail the photographer didn't want you to see, or to 
give added emphasis to some minor feature, or even be staged. However,
once the technology to manipulate the elements of the photo become good
enough to be undetectable, all bets are off. There is no way you can be 
sure that what you are looking at is in any way part of a real scene. Yet 
the photo is presented as evidence of reality. This is nothing short of 
fraud.

Even a photo taken with the intent to deceive yields a wealth of detail
information to the trained observer that can't be hidden. Once the 
power to undetectably change that detail becomes possible, there is
no longer any assurance that any truth can be derived from a photo.
Subtle things like powder smudges on the nose of an aircraft, depth
of ruts on the ground, color of grass, etc all yield valuable information
that may not have been intended to be released. Shadows can give the
astute observer the exact time a photo was taken. If that doesn't 
match the time quoted in the caption, you know immediately that
you are being lied to. I could go on and on, photo interpretation
is a pretty advanced science. Even the layman unconciously notices
detail that lends an air of reality or unreality to a photograph.

Photographs are particularly convincing in a way that reams of text
are not because people have become accustomed to believing that what
they see is real. When it becomes technically feasible to break that
assumption, and when people finally wake up to the fact that they are
being blatently lied to by photos, photojournalism is dead as a credible
source of information. This concerns me because I work in the field
and don't want to lose what little credibility that remains.  

In broadcast news, tools already are in common use that can alter a scene
completely. And I know first hand that they *are* being used in this
way. People are aware of this and because they have seen the tricks in
commercials and entertainment programing, they put less trust in the
images. With still photos however, the public is not yet aware that
such clever manipulation is being done. 

Gary