And I do agree that it is confusing that I sometimes switch from my perspective to the opponents. To simplify things: To me, a photograph is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something.
DagT
Pĺ 24. jan. 2005 kl. 20.04 skrev William Robb:
Dag is a bit of a master at photographic trickery through the use of mirrors and the like.
His definition of the truth is, to me, rather suspect, since his lies happen in front of the lens, but he is able to call his pictures truthful since they are what the lens saw.
Obfuscating the truth is still a lie.
William Robb
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Heim" Subject: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
I can't agree with you.
I know that pictures have ever been manipulated, people have even been
cut out of images because of political reasons. But does that give as a
carte blanche to manipulate pictures without telling anybody about it?
I give you a practical example. A few years ago htere was a terroristic
incident in luxor, egypt, where many people died. There were a lot of
pictures. One of them showed the plaxe and a puddle of blood. So thought
we. In real, it was an ordinary puddle of water, but some guy made it
look a little more redish.
Some newspaper printed the picture. It was a big scandal.
I would say, in a journalistic environment, that wasn't OK. I think you
would agree. But were is the borderline?
I'm more tolerant, if a picture is declared as "art". If anybody can see
it was manipulated. But, if you shoot a picture for national geografic
magazine - you can't tinker around.
Michael
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 24. Januar 2005 12:11 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Answers below:
fra: "Michael Heim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Now that we are speaking about "looking away" and "do's & don'ts". Lets get ethical: Should photographers make a declaration when having manipulated (i mean: worked hard in photoshop) a picture?
No. Any photograph is already manipulated, from the moment you choose what to photograph and how.
Examples: - adding grain digitally ;-) - putting objects in or taking them out of a picture - changing colours (with digital colour filters) - cutting pimpels out of faces
These are things that were done in the darkroom a hundred years ago. Photoshop makes no difference.
Does it make a difference if the photos are for - newspapers - magazines - a photo exhibition?
Only if the tekst say something that isn't true. If a journalist or artist claims that an altered photograph shows something that is true, he is telling a lie. The photograph just shows something, it is the context that matters.
We should never believe photographs, because they are so easy to believe
in but lie so easily.
DagT
