Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1660

[P3D Peter Davis <pfd@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:15 PM 10/31/96 -0600, you wrote:
>
>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:52:42 -0600
>>From: P3D Ronald J Beck 840196  <rbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1660 
>
>>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?
>
>I think we've been trying to distinguish between photography for artistic
>purposes and photojournalism. My opinion is that the criteria by which
>computer manipulation might be deemed acceptable and the policies for
>disclosing the manipulation should be *much* more stringent for 
>photojournalism.

All photographs are interpretations.  Even with the simplest equipment, a
photographer exercise tremendous control over the appearance and impact of
the image.  The chose of subject, lighting, composition, etc. are all key
factors to the "look" and emotional impact of the photograph.  There's no
getting around it.

While I certainly don't endorse extending freedom of speech to cover libel
or false advertising, nonetheless, I think that it is the responsibility of
the audience, not the information provider, to develop critical faculties
and to understand that all news, images, and information that are presented
in popular media are tailored for effect.

-pd
--------
                                Peter Davis
                        http://www.ziplink.net/~pfd/

                   "Nondescript -- the one word oxymoron."


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