One more post to help apoppin understand the seriousness of this. 🙂
Photographs that lie
....And so the question becomes: Where do you draw the line?
It's a question that's always been at the heart of news photography. Pictures have been staged since the 1850s; retouching photos by hand was once commonplace in many newsrooms; and photographers can change the composition of a print in the darkroom. Over the years, ethical standards have tightened. Today, retouching a news photo is forbidden at most newspapers, and faking a photograph is grounds for dismissal.
But ethical standards may have slipped in one key area: making sure the reader recognizes the difference between real and artifical photos.
The distinction is critical. People expect certain kinds of photos to represent reality. In the trade, these pictures are called documentary photos because they strive to portray real events and real people in true-to-life settings. You'll find them every day in the news pages.
But there are other kinds of pictures, far fewer in number, that do not aim to depict reality. These conceptual photos, or "photo illustrations,'' are created often in the studio, and now in computers with the purpose of symbolizing a concept or evoking a mood.
Conceptual photos, such as an art-directed studio shot of a ballet dancer or fashion model or truffle, are more akin to a painting than to the gritty, hard-edged realism of photojournalism. And because the shot was artificially set up in the first place, it's OK to fine-tune the image to give it more impact.
That's the conventional wisdom, at any rate.....
By any standard in journalism, he should have either dinstinctly made sure that it was clear the photo was not real, and labeled it as such. Obviously, those as smart as apoppin need not worry about this as they can tell real vs. fake right away.
Photographs that lie
....And so the question becomes: Where do you draw the line?
It's a question that's always been at the heart of news photography. Pictures have been staged since the 1850s; retouching photos by hand was once commonplace in many newsrooms; and photographers can change the composition of a print in the darkroom. Over the years, ethical standards have tightened. Today, retouching a news photo is forbidden at most newspapers, and faking a photograph is grounds for dismissal.
But ethical standards may have slipped in one key area: making sure the reader recognizes the difference between real and artifical photos.
The distinction is critical. People expect certain kinds of photos to represent reality. In the trade, these pictures are called documentary photos because they strive to portray real events and real people in true-to-life settings. You'll find them every day in the news pages.
But there are other kinds of pictures, far fewer in number, that do not aim to depict reality. These conceptual photos, or "photo illustrations,'' are created often in the studio, and now in computers with the purpose of symbolizing a concept or evoking a mood.
Conceptual photos, such as an art-directed studio shot of a ballet dancer or fashion model or truffle, are more akin to a painting than to the gritty, hard-edged realism of photojournalism. And because the shot was artificially set up in the first place, it's OK to fine-tune the image to give it more impact.
That's the conventional wisdom, at any rate.....
By any standard in journalism, he should have either dinstinctly made sure that it was clear the photo was not real, and labeled it as such. Obviously, those as smart as apoppin need not worry about this as they can tell real vs. fake right away.
