| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2005 10:18:07 AM · #1 |
New York Times article
The camera certain never lies but the human always points it in a particular direction.
Message edited by author 2005-01-10 10:18:47. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 10:25:15 AM · #2 |
Read that yesterday...lesson #1, you will NEVER please everyone, there will always be someone who will be offended.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 12:28:51 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
New York Times article
The camera certain never lies but the human always points it in a particular direction. |
Can't read...need subscription...
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 12:43:45 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Can't read...need subscription... |
Try bugmenot.com |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 12:47:35 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Can't read...need subscription... |
Try bugmenot.com |
MK you are a god!
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 01:06:53 PM · #6 |
This article is interesting for sure. Photojournalistic images are truthful only to the extent that the accompanying story allows them to be. There is 'spin' almost everywhere you look in the news media. The 'spin' may be for or against your own beliefs though.
The most powerfully spun images that I tend to see are on the covers of the tabloid trash in the supermarket checkout line. These photos are manipulated and presented in such a way as to support whatever story they are associated with. Other news media does the same thing, but not with the same disregard for photo editing morals. As this article states, the angle, the crop, and several other factors can indeed change the message that an image creates in the viewer's mind.
When we are on this debate of what is and isn't 'real', we have to keep all these things in mind. The most common arguments against 'manipulation' in photojournalism come when an image doesn't fit the way a particular viewer wants see it.
There are precise moments in time when you can make a photo that totally misrepresents the subject. Take this photo for instance:
It's a cute and laughable photograph, but it totally misrepresents the person in the image. However, if my own agenda was supported by the use of this image, I could use it for that purpose. Is this kid cross-eyed? He was when I snapped the photo and a viewer who is not associated with him in any other way that I allow him to be would never know the difference. Is the photo real? Sure... I did not manipulate the photo in any way.
So... "Real" is nothing more than we allow it to be.
My conclusion:
Unmanipulated photos certainly are 'real'. Gordon's statement is right on the money. The human element doesn't believe what it sees sometimes. Other times it is misled into believing something else.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 01:17:56 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Can't read...need subscription... |
Try bugmenot.com |
MK you are a god! |
I second that...
Thank you. I'm going to use this a _lot_ |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 08:48:21 AM EDT.
