From   Tue, 08 Apr 2003 14:03:32 -0700 remote from
fanciful.org
Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.6.450.61)
          for photo{at}fanciful.org; Tue, 08 Apr 2003 14:03:32 -0700
Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181]) HELO=saf.tzo.com
          by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP v5.6.450.61) with SMTP
          id 653578656; Tue, 08 Apr 2003 14:03:28 -0700
Received: from 216.174.194.60 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003040817062818751 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Tue, 08 Apr 2003 21:06:28 GMT
Received: (qmail 6489 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2003 21:03:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Carl?Cook.olywa.net) (64.42.61.43)
  by e4500a.atgi.net with SMTP; 8 Apr 2003 21:03:20 -0000
Message-Id: 
X-Sender: clcook{at}mail.olywa.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 14:04:16 -0700
To: 
From: Carl Cook 
Subject: Re: news article
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="=====================_27064414==_.ALT"

--=====================_27064414==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

I have been following this and the policies of papers/magazines concerning 
the altering of images with PhotoShop. Just about everyone is taking a hard 
line now, and have been ever since Time got caught altering that mug shot 
of O.J. Simpson. Nasty PR hit for Time.

I think it is a combination of the change of getting killed in the court of 
public opinion, along with the ease in which photos can be altered by just 
about anyone -- as opposed to the skills being locked away in the magic 
recesses of the darkroom where only alchemists do perform such nefarious 
deeds.

There is an emphasis on ethics these days, in some cases, rather purist -- 
editors destroying a photographer's meaning by cropping not withstanding. 
The last Photo Chief I worked for, said to me, "If you PhotoShop tore own 
work, how will I know if you altered it or not?" I answered, " It doesn't 
matter it you know, it only matters if I know!"

C

Oh, at that paper, photographers are now prohibited from doing their own 
PhotoShopping! This ruling by management -- which basically says that staff 
photographers cannot be trusted to be professional about their work -- has 
caused a huge stir. I'm really glad I don't shoot for them any more.


At 01:34 PM 4/8/2003 -0600, you wrote:


>I think in this case the altering of the image was stupid - knowing the
>paper's policy - but the firing was also draconian. The punishment did not
>fit the crime. Two shots in succession of a single incident were combined.
>
>No meaning was changed, the story the combined image told was no different
>than either of the source images - only the composition was improved. No one
>was demeaned or defamed, no new meaning was created. No viewers would have
>been lead astray.
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, send e-mail to wclistserve{at}fanciful.org with
>UNSUBSCRIBE photo in the message body on a line by itself.
>To contact the list admin, e-mail Tom.Lebens{at}fanciful.org
>---------------------------------------------------------------------

e-mail: clcook{at}olywa.net
http://www.clcookphoto.com
--=====================_27064414==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


I have been following this and the policies of papers/magazines
concerning the altering of images with PhotoShop. Just about everyone is
taking a hard line now, and have been ever since Time got caught altering
that mug shot of O.J. Simpson. Nasty PR hit for Time. 
I think it is a combination of the change of getting killed in the court
of public opinion, along with the ease in which photos can be altered by
just about anyone -- as opposed to the skills being locked away in the
magic recesses of the darkroom where only alchemists do perform such
nefarious deeds. 
There is an emphasis on ethics these days, in some cases, rather purist
-- editors destroying a photographer's meaning by cropping not
withstanding. The last Photo Chief I worked for, said to me, "If you
PhotoShop tore own work, how will I know if you altered it or not?"
I answered, " It doesn't matter it you know, it only matters if
I know!"
C
Oh, at that paper, photographers are now prohibited from doing their own
PhotoShopping! This ruling by management -- which basically says that
staff photographers cannot be trusted to be professional about their work
-- has caused a huge stir. I'm really glad I don't shoot for them any
more. 

At 01:34 PM 4/8/2003 -0600, you wrote:

I think in this case the altering
of the image was stupid - knowing the
paper's policy - but the firing was also draconian. The punishment did
not
fit the crime. Two shots in succession of a single incident were
combined.
No meaning was changed, the story the combined image told was no
different
than either of the source images - only the composition was improved. No
one
was demeaned or defamed, no new meaning was created. No viewers would
have
been lead astray.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to wclistserve{at}fanciful.org with
UNSUBSCRIBE photo in the message body on a line by itself.
To contact the list admin, e-mail Tom.Lebens{at}fanciful.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------

e-mail: clcook{at}olywa.net
http://www.clcookphoto.com/"
eudora="autourl">http://www.clcookphoto.com;

--=====================_27064414==_.ALT--

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5