Well stated Phillip. Good heavens! Has someone confused me with
Mappelthorpe? (Only with respect to the degree of controversy not the
subject matter.)
Tobias Andersson recently stated: "The question is still there. I feel that
when you change reality in either a digital or manual way, and the result is
totally different from the reality, then you should tell the beholder what
you have done."
How about this response Tobias: I did. I told the viewer exactly what was
done with the images...nothing. With the already stated exception provided
to Dave regarding the Rockport doorway. Perhaps I should have titled the
image that stirred such controversy: "Bridge over troubled waters!" Thank
you Simon and Garfunkel. At the present age of 49, their music holds fond
teenage memories. Thanks Hans.
I must admit Tobias, I have ambivalent feelings whether a photographer
should be required to reveal any image manipulation. Since the word
manipulation can be construed to mean so many things.
In any event, your apology is accepted. Let's move on. From this point on
I'll photograph only black holes! :-)
RonS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Phillip Franklin
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 6:02 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] OM Photos for your critique
Since this is getting to be a hot topic and much more interesting than
politics or SUV's, I guess it's ok to add my 2 cents. In my occasional
world of commercial photography and imaging, image manipulation is not
only the standard, it is required for success and economics. I kind of
got my start in the professional side of imaging by knowing the tools
and techniques of digital imaging about 10 years ago. All those product
shots and beauty shots (even Playboy fixes the images) are manipulated.
In the gloss printed media world perfection rules. Nothing less. It's
not important how you do it ... you just better do it. Nobody wants to
see life as if it was captured by the unimaginative. Even the great
photo journalists see things that mere mortals can't see. This is what
makes them great. Maybe their images are not manipulated (in the post
production sense) but their brains and eyes are. They show the reality
which they see. We have the option of accepting it or not. Tobias and
others who criticize artistic expression or imagination by the
photographer should be forced to only view police, crime scene,
insurance, court room and mug shot photography. Yes those are the Xerox
copies of reality with no obvious manipulation which means no
imagination. Any comments?
Phillip Franklin
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|