Xref: utzoo misc.headlines:26017 rec.photo:21272 sci.electronics:20105 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary From: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) Newsgroups: misc.headlines,rec.photo,sci.electronics Subject: Re: News photo contains "smart glitch?" Message-ID: <2804@ke4zv.UUCP> Date: 11 May 91 13:26:16 GMT References: <5110@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <5130@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <10034@plains.NoDak.edu> Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) Followup-To: misc.headlines Organization: Gannett Technologies Group Lines: 65 In article kph@cs.brown.edu (Kenneth Paul Herndon) writes: >In article 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