Re: OJ picture

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >>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?   >Mike K.
> 
> The difference is that such picture was not taken!  That's the difference.

But they could have, and someone might actually have one, but they didn't
have a copy handy.  They could have taken most any photo and just underexposed
the print to give a similar general emotional effect.

> One picture was manipulated ("enhanced") to make a point.  The question 
> is, can you alter a picture "to solicit an emotional response" or to make 
> a point?  What is your answer?  -- George T.

My short answer is yes, and that it's common.  Even highschool yearbooks
commonly and routinely manipulate student pictures to remove (sometimes 
massive) acne, etc.  And most people are glad it was done.  Probably
true for magazine covers as well.

For the long answer....

It's probably true that every photo published in a major (or even minor)
publication was chosen for the emotional impact among many that could have
been chosen (the number if images available from image-houses is incredible),
all were manipulated by the photographer in some way for emotional impact.

So there are three real questions.  

        1)  Should emotional response to a picture be a basis for selecting images?
        
        2)  Should images be manipulated at all (by any means)?

        3)  Does it make any difference where in the production process manipulation
            occurs?  It can be ahead-of-lens, it can be optically in a photo-lab,
            or it can be in the digital-domain post-lab.  Does it matter where it is
            done (other than for cost and time-to-completion considerations)?

Some do argue against #1, but I think that it pragmatically has to be yes, in
general.

Likewise, pragmatically in #2, needs to be yes.  Photos are "manipulated" by time
it's taken, artificial lighting, by telling subjects to "say cheese", telling them
to smile, using a flash, taking a picture late in the day or evening when the
subject is tired and shadows are long, telling the subject they're an 
<explitive deleted>,  Etc.  Old fashion "dodging", airbrushing, double
exposures, etc, are all photo manipulations.  For that matter, even masking 
is manipulation of the image to modify emotional response.

#3 is closest to the subject matter and where the 3D connection is.  To me,
manipulation is manipulation.  So in general, I'd say "no".  Looking at image
production as a system, the result (bottom line) is the same.  How it was done
is an implementation detail having to do with time and money.

But as in all general statements (like my answers above) I'd probably disagree 
with myself in certain cases.

For instance.  If manipulation is used to create an image that *could* be "real"
but manipulation is used to pragmatically get the image or to artificially cause
the image to occur, then it seems legit.  If manipulation is used to create something
blatantly and inherently false, but presented as "real", then thin ice is being 
traversed.

It also depends upon how "obvious" things were done.   I've seen images with
superimposed devil-horns on some public figure. Probably done with simple 
double-exposure sorts of NON-computer manipulation.  Is this okay?  The
answer probably depends whether you like that public figure or not.

I don't think the answer to #2 and #3 is real clear.  

Famous engineering quote:

                "The devil is in the details".

Mike K.


P.S. - I have not seen the mentioned OJ photo, so I can't say what category I 
       think the specific image is in.  I've avoided any news of OJ since 
       about the time the first trial started -- I was already
       completely O.D.'d by then.




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