Re: Doctoring photos

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > > 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.

I don't see how O.J. would have any choice.  If he's walking outside and the
assistant has the radio-controlled flash in the designed spot, it'd end up
with a similar result.  This is what I meant.  Alternatively the photographer
could pick the time of the day and location.  There's enough opportunities
it seems.

That is what I meant.  Sorry for not being too clear about that.

Mike K.


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