Politically biased lighting?

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:16:26 GMT, Paul Heslop
wrote:

Those damned normans!

Yeah! There's a guy named Norman lives across the street. Never trusted
him anyway.

and that Norman Wisdom was a pain the arse.

I accept your right to "out" yourself but there are more appropriate newsgroups
for doing this than those dedicated to photography.
--

Cheers . . . JC

JC wrote:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:16:26 GMT, Paul Heslop
wrote:

Those damned normans!

Yeah! There's a guy named Norman lives across the street. Never trusted
him anyway.

and that Norman Wisdom was a pain the arse.

I accept your right to "out" yourself but there are more appropriate newsgroups
for doing this than those dedicated to photography.
--

Cheers . . . JC

chuckle.
--
Paul (Take my hand, I'm standing right here)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:47:29 GMT, no_name
wrote:

Rich wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 23:39:43 GMT, no_name
wrote:

Digital photojournalism ethics allows a much narrower latitude for
correction than film photojournalism did; to the extent that even
dodging & burning are frowned upon.


IMO, the photo should reflect not what the camera saw, but what
the crowd saw. Given photography's limitations when it comes
to dynamic range, then some manipulation is needed. It is a sure
bet the audience didn't see one of the politicians in a completely
dark shadow.

OTOH, such manipulation is not within the scopes of ethical digital
photojournalism. You're expected to work within the limitations
photographic media impose.

If the shot you get is dark shadow, dark shadow is what gets submitted
for publication.

If cameras worked like our eyes, it would be ok.
As it is, it's misrepresentation.

dj_nme wrote:

Rich wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:47:29 GMT, no_name
wrote:


Rich wrote:


On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 23:39:43 GMT, no_name
wrote:

Digital photojournalism ethics allows a much narrower latitude for
correction than film photojournalism did; to the extent that even
dodging & burning are frowned upon.


IMO, the photo should reflect not what the camera saw, but what
the crowd saw. Given photography's limitations when it comes
to dynamic range, then some manipulation is needed. It is a sure
bet the audience didn't see one of the politicians in a completely
dark shadow.

OTOH, such manipulation is not within the scopes of ethical digital
photojournalism. You're expected to work within the limitations
photographic media impose.

If the shot you get is dark shadow, dark shadow is what gets submitted
for publication.


If cameras worked like our eyes, it would be ok.
As it is, it's misrepresentation.

If the photog was doing their job properly, they would have used flash
to fill in the shadow so you could see the subjects of the picture.

I guess they'd use flash to get a better picture of bats in flight at
Carlsbad Caverns too. Flash is only a viable option if you are close
enough to the subject for it to be effective and even then it may not be
allowed in the particular location in which you are taking the shot.

If your only experience is snapshots of Aunt Tillie or studio work, then
don't assume that you understand the realities that a working
photojournalist has to deal with.

It looks like the "original" that was put up as an example of "political
biased lighting" is not what it seems, and if you look at the bottom
right hand corner it has the logo "host tv" which implies that it is a
still image grabbed from a video stream.
The "three amigos" in the picture had probably finished a TV press
conference, were walking towards the audience and out of the extremely
bright lighting required for (what I assume was) the TV press
conference, just as they were starting to leave the auditorium.

Very likely.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Rich wrote:
If cameras worked like our eyes, it would be ok.
As it is, it's misrepresentation.

Yes. News photos should represent exactly what people are seeing and
thinking.

Like this one.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2...eyretire.0.jpg

wrote in message
oups.com...
British National Party leader Nick Griffin, as portrayed in the London
Times April 17, 2006, two weeks before the local elections, the
lighting equivalent of shining a torch under the chin.

http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/pic...,289298,00.jpg


I only just got around to reading this thread and it seems to me that
everyone has got a little away from the subject of the original post.

Anyone with just a passing knowledge of photographic lighting and
composition will know that lighting a portarit from below will make the
subject take on a sinister air. Shooting from below also has a strong
bearing on how the viewer will perceive the subject.

The question is do we want photograhers to take "pictures of record" ie. a
flat picture that shows the subject was at location A on date B..... or do
we want the photographer to use his craft to paint a picture and convey an
idea?

There is little doubt here that the photographer was attempting to give an
impression of the subject by lighting from below... my own view is that the
shadow cast by the hand pretty well ruins the shot as it makes the upward
lighting very obvious and hides part of the face.

My own view is that a political photographer not putting some "bias" into
his pictures is probably not serving his editor very well. All papers, in
the UK at least, have very definite political agendas. Few if any
papers favour the BNP so I guess a freelancer would also have most to gain
from an unflattering photo, maximising his or market.
The photo of Nick Griffin was taken by David Bebber, he frequently works for
Reuters but I have no idea whether he is a staffer or freelance.

Incidentally todays Daily Telegraph has a photograph of Tory leader David
Cameron under the headline "Cameron calls on voters to back anyone but the
BNP". The picture of Mr Cameron is a much better example of lighting from
below and the side.. see
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

This is particularly interesting as the Telegraph is general sympathetic to
the Conservative Party. The picture cannot be called flattering.


My aplologies to any left handed people who take exception to the term
"sinister".


Chris D.

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:38:23 +1000, dj_nme wrote:

Rich wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:47:29 GMT, no_name
wrote:


Rich wrote:


On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 23:39:43 GMT, no_name
wrote:

Digital photojournalism ethics allows a much narrower latitude for
correction than film photojournalism did; to the extent that even
dodging & burning are frowned upon.


IMO, the photo should reflect not what the camera saw, but what
the crowd saw. Given photography's limitations when it comes
to dynamic range, then some manipulation is needed. It is a sure
bet the audience didn't see one of the politicians in a completely
dark shadow.

OTOH, such manipulation is not within the scopes of ethical digital
photojournalism. You're expected to work within the limitations
photographic media impose.

If the shot you get is dark shadow, dark shadow is what gets submitted
for publication.


If cameras worked like our eyes, it would be ok.
As it is, it's misrepresentation.

If the photog was doing their job properly, they would have used flash
to fill in the shadow so you could see the subjects of the picture.

Agreed, and post-processing is implementing the same thing as a flash,
only afterward.

It looks like the "original" that was put up as an example of "political
biased lighting" is not what it seems, and if you look at the bottom
right hand corner it has the logo "host tv" which implies that it is a
still image grabbed from a video stream.
The "three amigos" in the picture had probably finished a TV press
conference, were walking towards the audience and out of the extremely
bright lighting required for (what I assume was) the TV press
conference, just as they were starting to leave the auditorium.

But they never said the image came off a video monitor, it's
a sure bet Bush wasn't in deep shadow in person, therefore the image
is misleading as it was rendered. It's too bad that the bottom of the
screen didn't have some banner running across it because at least then
they'd have had to say it came from a shot taken off a monitor.
-Rich

Chris Down wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

British National Party leader Nick Griffin, as portrayed in the London
Times April 17, 2006, two weeks before the local elections, the
lighting equivalent of shining a torch under the chin.

http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/pic...,289298,00.jpg



I only just got around to reading this thread and it seems to me that
everyone has got a little away from the subject of the original post.

Anyone with just a passing knowledge of photographic lighting and
composition will know that lighting a portarit from below will make the
subject take on a sinister air. Shooting from below also has a strong
bearing on how the viewer will perceive the subject.

The question is do we want photograhers to take "pictures of record" ie. a
flat picture that shows the subject was at location A on date B..... or do
we want the photographer to use his craft to paint a picture and convey an
idea?

There is little doubt here that the photographer was attempting to give an
impression of the subject by lighting from below... my own view is that the
shadow cast by the hand pretty well ruins the shot as it makes the upward
lighting very obvious and hides part of the face.

Well, you have a couple of different discussions going on here ...

There's the suggestion of bias in the choice of lighting, although as it
turns out the image is a single frame video capture. So the decision on
the "photograph" was apparently made by the newspaper's editors, not by
an actual photographer.

A second discussion is about the proper way to light someone when
photographing at a press conference, which is often dictated by the
people/organization holding the press conference. They can and do
sometimes tell you not to use flash, I think because they don't like
what it does to video, and TV is more "important" than old fashioned
print journalism. And if you're not one of the "chosen few", you're
going to be working from the sidelines, so you might not get the best
working angles.

And it seems lately, you're only likely to be one of the "chosen few" if
you're a unabashed syncophantic flack (or working for an organization
considered a solid supporter the current administration - Jeff Gannon is
in, Helen Thomas is out).

Third is the "ethics" of digital photojournalism, and that's what I was
commenting on.

In today's climate, once you have the shot in memory, you're not
supposed to manipulate it; and the boundaries of what is considered
manipulation is now far more restrictive than it was in the days of film.

no_name wrote:

Chris Down wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

British National Party leader Nick Griffin, as portrayed in the London
Times April 17, 2006, two weeks before the local elections, the
lighting equivalent of shining a torch under the chin.

http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/pic...,289298,00.jpg



I only just got around to reading this thread and it seems to me that
everyone has got a little away from the subject of the original post.

Anyone with just a passing knowledge of photographic lighting and
composition will know that lighting a portarit from below will make the
subject take on a sinister air. Shooting from below also has a strong
bearing on how the viewer will perceive the subject.

The question is do we want photograhers to take "pictures of record" ie. a
flat picture that shows the subject was at location A on date B..... or do
we want the photographer to use his craft to paint a picture and convey an
idea?

There is little doubt here that the photographer was attempting to give an
impression of the subject by lighting from below... my own view is that the
shadow cast by the hand pretty well ruins the shot as it makes the upward
lighting very obvious and hides part of the face.

Well, you have a couple of different discussions going on here ...

There's the suggestion of bias in the choice of lighting, although as it
turns out the image is a single frame video capture. So the decision on
the "photograph" was apparently made by the newspaper's editors, not by
an actual photographer.

I'm not sure about this actual shot but I think Nick holds a lot of
his meetings in small places, probably badly lit in the first place.
I've done a bit of searching for meeting shots... found

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/grap...16/nbnp16b.jpg
http://scot.altermedia.info/images/bnp.jpg
http://www.bnp.org.uk/freedom/regions/1709kirklees.jpg (Spot the
skins, jees no wonder I don't feel safe on the streets!)

That's not to say the image wasn't chosen deliberately though. He's an
easy target.




--
Paul (Take my hand, I'm standing right here)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

Paul Heslop wrote:

http://scot.altermedia.info/images/bnp.jpg

Sorry, I should have mentioned there are obviously some other BNPs and
this may be an alternative.

--
Paul (Take my hand, I'm standing right here)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/