Microsoft ad endorses photo manipulation

On 10/23/2010 10:45 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:17:29 -0700, C J Campbell


And news photographers who do such things can get in serious trouble for it.
But if they achieve the same effect by taking countless pictures of the group
and using the best one, it's perfectly OK. On the face of it, it seems a
distinction without a difference, but I guess there's a "slippery slope" there
that has to be assiduously avoided.


One of the best known examples of that was taken by a war news
photographer named Rosenthal at a place called Iwo Jima.

--
Peter

On 2010-10-23 08:29:09 -0700, peter said:

On 10/23/2010 10:45 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:17:29 -0700, C J Campbell


And news photographers who do such things can get in serious trouble for it.
But if they achieve the same effect by taking countless pictures of the group
and using the best one, it's perfectly OK. On the face of it, it seems a
distinction without a difference, but I guess there's a "slippery slope" there
that has to be assiduously avoided.


One of the best known examples of that was taken by a war news
photographer named Rosenthal at a place called Iwo Jima.

However that was not photo-manipulation, or a posed shot. The confusion
arose when the second raising of a larger flag was ordered, and
Rosenthal's iconic shot for AP was touted as "the flag raising" by the
propaganda machine on the mainland. There was no intent of deception on
Rosenthal's part.

The photographs of the first raising taken by Sgt. Lou Lowery were not
well circulated as Lowery was a combat photographer for Leatherneck
magazine, and was not out on the wire to the mainland like Rosenthal's
AP work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_R._Lowery


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:50:06 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2010-10-23 08:29:09 -0700, peter said:
:
: On 10/23/2010 10:45 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:17:29 -0700, C J Campbell
:
:
: And news photographers who do such things can get in serious trouble for it.
: But if they achieve the same effect by taking countless pictures of the group
: and using the best one, it's perfectly OK. On the face of it, it seems a
: distinction without a difference, but I guess there's a "slippery slope" there
: that has to be assiduously avoided.
:
:
: One of the best known examples of that was taken by a war news
: photographer named Rosenthal at a place called Iwo Jima.
:
: However that was not photo-manipulation, or a posed shot. The confusion
: arose when the second raising of a larger flag was ordered, and
: Rosenthal's iconic shot for AP was touted as "the flag raising" by the
: propaganda machine on the mainland. There was no intent of deception on
: Rosenthal's part.
:
: The photographs of the first raising taken by Sgt. Lou Lowery were not
: well circulated as Lowery was a combat photographer for Leatherneck
: magazine, and was not out on the wire to the mainland like Rosenthal's
: AP work.
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_R._Lowery

Far be it from me to contradict such an authoritative source as Wikipedia, but
Rosenthal's photograph itself belies that explanation. The four Marines are
not shown raising a new flag on an existing pole; they're planting a pole with
a flag already on it, under what are clearly intended to be seen as combat
conditions. If Rosenthal weren't in on it, it couldn't have been staged that
way.

Bob

On 2010-10-23 07:45:01 -0700, Robert Coe said:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:17:29 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:
: On 2010-10-21 21:37:09 -0700, otter said:
:
: On Oct 21, 9:49*pm, peter wrote:
: On 10/21/2010 9:35 PM, RichA wrote:
:
: Where the mother hacks off the heads of her family in a shot, only to
: replace them with smiling, stupid-looking faces that please her more.
: Why be bothered by such triviality as reality?
:
: Link, please.
:
: --
: Peter
:
: Yeah, I've seen the commercial on TV, too. Mother takes several shots
: of the family on the couch, and in each photo somebody is screwing
: up. So she combines the best faces taken from each of the photos.
: Adobe has had this feature for some time.
:
: I have seen pros do that, too.

And news photographers who do such things can get in serious trouble for it.
But if they achieve the same effect by taking countless pictures of the group
and using the best one, it's perfectly OK. On the face of it, it seems a
distinction without a difference, but I guess there's a "slippery slope" there
that has to be assiduously avoided.

Bob

This is a basic difference, though, between "documentary" photography
and "art." The function of the news photographer is quite different
from that of the portraitist or wedding photographer, for example. I
try to keep those functions separate. For example, I have a picture of
a bear running along the base of a waterfall with a salmon in his
mouth. There is, however, a distracting tuft of grass in the
foreground. I could remove it, but then the picture would not be as
authentic to me. I would be offended by its absence, if you will.

On the other hand, I have no problem with removing distracting street
signs, litter, or other unwanted objects from wedding photos, nor do I
see any reason why you should not have everyone with their best face
forward, so to speak. It is all fantasy anyway.

We recently took a cruise. Before we boarded the ship, the ship's
photographers had set up a photo booth with a green screen inside the
terminal. They took everybody's picture. When they printed it out, the
ship was in the background and it looked like you were standing on the
dock. Now, everyone knows that they never stood in such a spot. Yet
they buy these pictures by the ream.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 10/23/2010 11:50 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-10-23 08:29:09 -0700, peter said:

On 10/23/2010 10:45 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:17:29 -0700, C J Campbell


And news photographers who do such things can get in serious trouble
for it.
But if they achieve the same effect by taking countless pictures of
the group
and using the best one, it's perfectly OK. On the face of it, it seems a
distinction without a difference, but I guess there's a "slippery
slope" there
that has to be assiduously avoided.


One of the best known examples of that was taken by a war news
photographer named Rosenthal at a place called Iwo Jima.

However that was not photo-manipulation, or a posed shot. The confusion
arose when the second raising of a larger flag was ordered, and
Rosenthal's iconic shot for AP was touted as "the flag raising" by the
propaganda machine on the mainland. There was no intent of deception on
Rosenthal's part.

The photographs of the first raising taken by Sgt. Lou Lowery were not
well circulated as Lowery was a combat photographer for Leatherneck
magazine, and was not out on the wire to the mainland like Rosenthal's
AP work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_R._Lowery



From what I hear, it was a staged shot. I have heard from others that
"extras" were "asked" to help make a it more dramatic shot.
Indeed that very point was mentioned by the speaker at my CC meeting,
last Thursday.
I can't say for certain it is true, but when I run into that speaker I
will ask him.

--
Peter

On 10/23/2010 1:03 PM, C J Campbell wrote:
On 2010-10-23 07:45:01 -0700, Robert Coe said:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:17:29 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:
: On 2010-10-21 21:37:09 -0700, otter said:
:
: On Oct 21, 9:49 pm, peter wrote:
: On 10/21/2010 9:35 PM, RichA wrote:
:
: Where the mother hacks off the heads of her family in a shot,
only to
: replace them with smiling, stupid-looking faces that please her
more.
: Why be bothered by such triviality as reality?
:
: Link, please.
:
: --
: Peter
:
: Yeah, I've seen the commercial on TV, too. Mother takes several shots
: of the family on the couch, and in each photo somebody is screwing
: up. So she combines the best faces taken from each of the photos.
: Adobe has had this feature for some time.
:
: I have seen pros do that, too.

And news photographers who do such things can get in serious trouble
for it.
But if they achieve the same effect by taking countless pictures of
the group
and using the best one, it's perfectly OK. On the face of it, it seems a
distinction without a difference, but I guess there's a "slippery
slope" there
that has to be assiduously avoided.

Bob

This is a basic difference, though, between "documentary" photography
and "art." The function of the news photographer is quite different from
that of the portraitist or wedding photographer, for example. I try to
keep those functions separate. For example, I have a picture of a bear
running along the base of a waterfall with a salmon in his mouth. There
is, however, a distracting tuft of grass in the foreground. I could
remove it, but then the picture would not be as authentic to me. I would
be offended by its absence, if you will.

On the other hand, I have no problem with removing distracting street
signs, litter, or other unwanted objects from wedding photos, nor do I
see any reason why you should not have everyone with their best face
forward, so to speak. It is all fantasy anyway.

We recently took a cruise. Before we boarded the ship, the ship's
photographers had set up a photo booth with a green screen inside the
terminal. They took everybody's picture. When they printed it out, the
ship was in the background and it looked like you were standing on the
dock. Now, everyone knows that they never stood in such a spot. Yet they
buy these pictures by the ream.

Somewhere in my files is a shot of me shaking hands with then President
George H.W. Bush. I never met the man in my life. Although I once had a
pleasant conversation with Barbara Bush. (No photos of that, though.)

--
Peter
I used to be on the rubber chicken circuit.

On 10/23/10 PDT 10:00 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:50:06 -0700, Savageduck

:
: The photographs of the first raising taken by Sgt. Lou Lowery were not
: well circulated as Lowery was a combat photographer for Leatherneck
: magazine, and was not out on the wire to the mainland like Rosenthal's
: AP work.
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_R._Lowery

Far be it from me to contradict such an authoritative source as Wikipedia, but
Rosenthal's photograph itself belies that explanation. The four Marines are
not shown raising a new flag on an existing pole; they're planting a pole with
a flag already on it, under what are clearly intended to be seen as combat
conditions. If Rosenthal weren't in on it, it couldn't have been staged that
way.


The narrative about the new flag on the existing pole *could* be
incorrect, and it does seem unlikely that the original flag was on a
pole complete with pulleys and proper lines for raising and lowering....

In any event, it's interesting that the two photogs. chose completely
opposite views- or one is printed backwards- or there was quite a wind
shift in a short period of time.

--
john mcwilliams

On 10/23/10 PDT 10:03 AM, C J Campbell wrote:

We recently took a cruise. Before we boarded the ship, the ship's
photographers had set up a photo booth with a green screen inside the
terminal. They took everybody's picture. When they printed it out, the
ship was in the background and it looked like you were standing on the
dock. Now, everyone knows that they never stood in such a spot. Yet they
buy these pictures by the ream.

More on the cruise, please! I've enjoyed a few such on NCL, (Norwegian
CL), but am looking for some other ideas.

So far, I've not been tempted to buy any of the gratuitous shots, but
they do print a lot on NCL.... guess it must be profitable.

--
john mcwilliams

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 11:07:03 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:
: On 10/23/10 PDT 10:00 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:50:06 -0700, Savageduck
:
: :
: : The photographs of the first raising taken by Sgt. Lou Lowery were not
: : well circulated as Lowery was a combat photographer for Leatherneck
: : magazine, and was not out on the wire to the mainland like Rosenthal's
: : AP work.
: : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_R._Lowery
:
: Far be it from me to contradict such an authoritative source as Wikipedia, but
: Rosenthal's photograph itself belies that explanation. The four Marines are
: not shown raising a new flag on an existing pole; they're planting a pole with
: a flag already on it, under what are clearly intended to be seen as combat
: conditions. If Rosenthal weren't in on it, it couldn't have been staged that
: way.
:
:
: The narrative about the new flag on the existing pole *could* be
: incorrect, and it does seem unlikely that the original flag was on a
: pole complete with pulleys and proper lines for raising and lowering....
:
: In any event, it's interesting that the two photogs. chose completely
: opposite views- or one is printed backwards- or there was quite a wind
: shift in a short period of time.

The angle of the sun would have changed; and if you're going to stage a shot,
you might as well try to get the light in the correct orientation.

Bob

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:20:08 -0400, peter
wrote:
: Somewhere in my files is a shot of me shaking hands with then President
: George H.W. Bush. I never met the man in my life. Although I once had a
: pleasant conversation with Barbara Bush. (No photos of that, though.)

I met him while he was running for Vice President (my wife was an officer in
the state Women's Republican Federation) and berated him for skipping an
appearance at the Yale Club of Boston to attend a campaign event. His answer:
"If it's any consolation to you, I stood up the Harvard Club too!" :^)

Bob