Re: Doctoring photos

[P3D Marvin Jones <72657.3276@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > There's also the question of computer enhanced photos.  A good example is 
> > the Time Magazine's issue when O.J. Simpson's picture appeared.  The photo 
> > had been "enhanced" to give his face some shadowing and made it a bit more 
> > sinister.  So, the "artist" took an image and enhanced it to solicit an 
> > emotional response.  Is this a good thing?  A bad thing?
> 
> How's that significantly different from taking a picture with lighting that 
> provides that same or some similar sinister shadow effect?  Say, with 
> appropriately placed flash lighting by an assistant?
> 
How's it different? The involvement of the subject for one thing. Would O.J.
have purposely allowed a picture to be taken of him whose whole purpose was to
make him look sinister and evil? Such alteration is propaganda -- the alteration
of neutral images in order to convey a message that is not present in the
original. You may think the "message" true or false, but the point is that it is
not present in the unaltered image.


------------------------------