tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8276394445294788649.post7731294761212385369..comments2024-01-05T05:16:17.187-05:00Comments on Leslie F. Miller: untrue blue, misbegotten moonUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8276394445294788649.post-71895311432411039192008-10-26T20:25:00.000-04:002008-10-26T20:25:00.000-04:00Great post, Leslie. I am not sure where I am yet, ...Great post, Leslie. I am not sure where I am yet, but: <BR/><BR/>The thing that has always struck me about the photo issue about the legs is that if you'd been there, those legs would NEVER have been something you'd have seen; your attention would have been focused on the kneeling players. A camera does not select the way we do, so the photographer surely thought he was making the photo TRUER.<BR/><BR/>I don't think our ethics have sorted out the equivalent of a writer making notes on something he decides to leave out of the story. But when photographers edit, other than cropping, everything extraneous must be there . . .<BR/><BR/>Richard<BR/>http://richardgilbert.wordpress.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8276394445294788649.post-36336581101890054582008-10-09T23:06:00.000-04:002008-10-09T23:06:00.000-04:00Great post, Leslie. Something I hadn't really tho...Great post, Leslie. Something I hadn't really thought about but leaves me sitting here a little jealous because I don't know how to alter my pictures! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8276394445294788649.post-82525518205732525352008-10-09T10:22:00.000-04:002008-10-09T10:22:00.000-04:00I agree that we spend too much time pretending the...I agree that we spend too much time pretending there are hard and fast rules and then arguing about the rules. If there's anything to argue about, then the rule must not be as clear as we thought. <BR/><BR/>My feeling though is that if a photo is altered in a way that the average reader could notice (like removing a background object that's present in every other photo of the same scene) then even though it's basically harmless, it can raise questions in the reader's mind about the credibility of that photographer and, by association, the publication running the photo. <BR/><BR/>It's definitely a slippery slope or however you want to put it, but I think news outlets need to hold themselves to a high standard in order to maintain credibility. <BR/><BR/>And yeah, I liked David Sedaris a lot more before I found out the rather large extent of the exaggeration in his essays.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8276394445294788649.post-21024484262194875742008-10-08T07:55:00.000-04:002008-10-08T07:55:00.000-04:00Awesome work, as always, but I'm really just here ...Awesome work, as always, but I'm really just here to say HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!<BR/><BR/>xxooJanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888892205151669803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8276394445294788649.post-16669980662498108712008-10-07T16:12:00.000-04:002008-10-07T16:12:00.000-04:00fascinating post, Leslie. And you gave me somethin...fascinating post, Leslie. And you gave me something new to think about... "And if the subject is a detestable figure, every flaw and blemish is highlighted." I never imagined. :(Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8276394445294788649.post-63199911981074102952008-10-07T15:58:00.000-04:002008-10-07T15:58:00.000-04:00It's ALWAYS manipulated to some degree. Either in ...It's ALWAYS manipulated to some degree. Either in the darkroom or on the settings of your digital camera. Even the most boring neutral was believed to be neutral by someone's eye. Look at Ansel Adams, he burned and dodged the hell out of his stuff. Take a picture of what you see- it never really looks like what you see. The point is to bring your eye and felling to the table, unless you are documenting or a photojournalist. Even then- as is the case with many Civil War photojournalists- you may find the truth was altered slightly before the shot was taken. Besides there is THE TRUTH, and then there is what you see and accept as the truth. Often the first one can only be witnesses by a handful of people. The second is them telling the same story in 40 different ways leading to the second part - what you are willing to believe. <BR/>Sure, I believe people should know when they are being deceived. But I can live with a photo that has an element added to make it more attractive. It's all the other deception that bothers me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8276394445294788649.post-91986551034635911592008-10-07T10:55:00.000-04:002008-10-07T10:55:00.000-04:00I agree with you that a news photographer has the ...I agree with you that a news photographer has the right to edit unwanted, distracting or unnecessary details. Your point about black-and-white photographs in newspapers is spot on. If cost (of colour printing) can be allowed to alter "reality," then what's so wrong with getting rid of peripheral, non-contextual artifacts? <BR/><BR/>Had the photograph been of a newsworthy event — as opposed to a human interest-type moment — I could have understood the paper's stance. Clearly, it wasn't. It's my guess that the paper was embarrassed when the difference between Detrich's photo and those taken by the other photographers was, um, exposed. <BR/><BR/>By the way, as a Toledoan <I>and</I> as a former carrier of the paper, I can tell you that the newspaper is actually called <I>The Blade</I>, not the <I>Toledo Blade</I>. While its online URL is http://toledoblade.com, the paper itself is <I>The Blade</I>.<BR/><BR/>Just sayin'...patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07233974776281287080noreply@blogger.com