Re: OJ picture

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Dr. George A. Themelis asks:
>
>>>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.
>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.

This could be argued in circles, neverending. Altering a picture for
emotional response is within the scope of artistic accomplishment. Whether
or not it applies to factual news reporting is still an issue. If there is
any fault here, it is in the choice to publish the image, whether it was
natural or retouched. They use hand painted portraits of people on covers of
news magazines and any such work is completely shaded and made up by the
artist, however factual they are attempting to make it. 

In retouching a photo for a cover, it is the same thing, an artist doing
his/her own work. I agree that a choice for using fill flash, or waiting
till the shadows fall in the right direction is the same thing, an artist
exercising artistic judgement. There was far more *insinuation of
sinisterness* by mention that an artist had retouched the photo than if no
one had remarked on it at all.

Like it or not it exists in most photography and is responsible for the
qualities we most appreciate in photos, as we see them published in
magazines, books and other media. Bottom line is that most pictures are a
manipulation to make a point, especially ones intended for winning
competitions or telling some part of a news story or showing a 3D
reconstruction of the image of flowers. 

There is no escape from human expression in media created by humans. Whether
or not a particular instance is *right* or *wrong* depends on the context of
the presentation. Who was right or wrong when so many freaked out over
broadcast of the *War of the Worlds* by radio? As I listen to the same show,
I find it hard to understand how so many mistook it as real. They must have
had a mindset which was very open to believing it, to the degree that they
postponed any reality checks until later. Whose fault is it that despite the
retouched photo, the jury decided to find him legally not guilty (as if the
photo mattered)?

Getting back to 3D, if an enhanced set of photos tells a clearer or better
story, is it a less valid form of communication or a stronger form of
communication? In the news photo situation, the argument is apparently that
clearer communication can be unfairly convincing, a clearly subjective call
depending on which side of the issue you stand. (that's also why the defense
wants any real evidence thrown out before the trial, it may be convincing
and convicting) If an artist/photographer can get rid of obstructions to a
good shot before the shot, how is that different than getting rid of an
obstruction after the shot, especially if there was no option or opportunity
to remove it before the shot? (ie: telephone wires) 

Must the photographer always be bound by the moment and circumstance when
the shutter clicks? Or can the photographer concentrate on intended
communication and use whatever tools are available to make that clear? In
3D, you want all the typical characteristics of a good photo as well as
recognizable spatial relationships that are equally clear and satisfying to
see. If that can be enhanced by the photographer, it makes for a better
final image. A better final image does solicit an emotional response or make
a point, or it isn't a better image. IMHO.   : -)



Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1665
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe mc68hc11
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************