Xref: utzoo misc.headlines:25833 rec.photo:20919 sci.electronics:19843 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!optilink!cramer From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: misc.headlines,rec.photo,sci.electronics Subject: Re: News photo contains "smart glitch?" Message-ID: <6378@optilink.UUCP> Date: 2 May 91 22:09:20 GMT References: <5130@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <10034@plains.NoDak.edu> <1991May1.172913.5077@noao.edu> Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA Lines: 66 In article <1991May1.172913.5077@noao.edu>, lytle@noao.edu (Dyer Lytle CCS) writes: > 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. Maybe I've missed something, but isn't there an assumption made when presented with a photograph, at least in a news magazine, that it reflects reality? A real photograph may be a manipulation of the actual scene (much as most of the words reported in news magazines are manipulations of actual facts), but at least there hasn't been an outright lie. The distinction between doctoring photos to lie and to tell the truth, seems like a line easy to cross with the best of intentions, and nearly impossible to draw when your desire is for the "facts" to be on the other side of the line. # # 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, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, 602-323-4136 Which journals? Newsweek and Time? Don't make me laugh. They are propaganda arms of the liberal establishment. Responsible? Accurate? Careful? Dream on. -- Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine! Article X, "Sec. 23. That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." KY State Const. 1799