tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5714849826013693899.post1778033395384786865..comments2023-05-07T00:42:48.659-07:00Comments on Picture Perfect: why'd they do that? {media}John Curleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05363695269985504742noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5714849826013693899.post-55698982074464514952009-07-02T11:30:16.440-07:002009-07-02T11:30:16.440-07:00I agree that when a photograph is depicting an his...I agree that when a photograph is depicting an historical event it should be honest and unaltered. Photo jounarlism is supposed to be objective as seen through the eyes of the photographer and not through the eyes of the art department. For all I know the woman in the forground could have beeen shgot in the studio. That would make it more of a statement than an actual event. Time has the responisbility to let its readers know what is truth not propaganda.karen (astro_twilight)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5714849826013693899.post-48281660343072822892009-06-24T21:45:52.995-07:002009-06-24T21:45:52.995-07:00If memory serves, Dusty was silhouetted and used a...If memory serves, Dusty was silhouetted and used as an accent, so the picture was already compromised - taken out of the realm of a news photograph. While I agree that news photographs are sacrosanct, adding the corner of the ticket was hardly fiddling with the news. That argument was memorably epic, probably 5 or more man hours. Them were the days!<br /><br />a designerUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01796358360192301760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5714849826013693899.post-43258740918316063832009-06-24T20:16:55.621-07:002009-06-24T20:16:55.621-07:00It's too bad that the press can't be more ...It's too bad that the press can't be more objective. Instead, the editorial process has leached into digital image manipulation. Little wonder that the press is held in low regard in the USA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5714849826013693899.post-81249525809772571442009-06-24T18:09:11.316-07:002009-06-24T18:09:11.316-07:00That Time photo manipulation of OJ you have at the...That Time photo manipulation of OJ you have at the bottom of your post shows why it's not the most trustworthy of magazines when it comes to photo manipulation. Perhaps that's their effort at a disclaimer to avoid more problems of the type.<br /><br />I know pretty much nothing about photo manipulation, but I think you are right about the sky, at the very least. The bottom appears to me as if it has been darkened/fuzzed out because of how it fades into nothingness. So I think that's probably another bit of manipulation. You may be right about a composite as well, but if that's the case--even leaving aside any other ethical issues about using photo composites--it's a horrible choice when the cover story is subtitled "What I saw at the revolution."Sabrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13746486966764162127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5714849826013693899.post-49877307046231288652009-06-24T16:30:13.990-07:002009-06-24T16:30:13.990-07:00great post, and i agree wholeheartedly with your c...great post, and i agree wholeheartedly with your commentary.Plug1http://www.whatimseeing.comnoreply@blogger.com