On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 01:25:49PM -0700, keith_w wrote: > John Celio wrote: >> It's just a stamp. I'd much rather have the government not portray >> smoking as cool than accurately reproduce a tiny version of an old >> photo. >> >> John > > Sorry, John. No, it's NOT "just a stamp." > > Even a stamp should portray visual fact. Visual reality. > "Correcting" history should be permanently buried in the past. The > Russians, the Germans, whoever else perpetrated this unconscionable > editing to change reality of what was, were wrong. > > Almost literally everyone who sees this stamp says, "Where's her cigarette?" > Suckin' on a smoke is Bette Davis!
Quite. It's not just that they edited the cigarette out of the photograph (although even that would be pretty bad) - it's also that the photograph is so well known that most people who recognise the subject also spot the fact that the cigarette has been removed. There are many other photographs that could have been chosen if showing a cigarette was unacceptable. Of course you could argue that going with one of those photographs would also be a selective portrayal of reality. That's essentially unavoidable. But changing images to fit conceptions is an affront to photography. After all, that's effectively what was done with the recent missile launch, and with the OJ Simpson magazine cover - both despicable decisions, IMNSHO. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
