Xref: utzoo misc.headlines:25811 rec.photo:20843 sci.electronics:19790 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!noao!lytle From: lytle@noao.edu (Dyer Lytle CCS) Newsgroups: misc.headlines,rec.photo,sci.electronics Subject: Re: News photo contains "smart glitch?" Message-ID: <1991May1.172913.5077@noao.edu> Date: 1 May 91 17:29:13 GMT References: <5130@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <10034@plains.NoDak.edu> Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson AZ Lines: 48 In article 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