Microsoft ad endorses photo manipulation

On 2010-10-23 10:00:36 -0700, Robert Coe said:

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

As much as Wikipedia can be a questionable source for many subjects,
using it when facts have been verified is not entirely unacceptable.
The old conspiracy theory of the staged shot has its self been disproved.
Much was made of Rosenthal's answer when asked by another reporter, on
his return to the US, if the shot was posed, and he stated "yes", when
he thought the published shot was the posed group shot of the entire
team in front of the newly raised flag.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Iwo-group.jpg
He himself has stated the famous shot was more or less accidental, the
posed shot deliberate.
Watch Joe Genaust's film of the raising, and you tell me which part of
Rosenthal's shot was staged or posed. Pick the moment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbnZax_gwr8

They already had photographs and footage of the first raising. It was
only the ego of a politician, James Forrestal, who wanted that original
flag, and Col. Chandler Johnson who ordered it replaced with the larger
second flag. The real impact on the battle field was the appearance of
the smaller first flag on Suribachi.

You need to reference other accounts.
http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pulitzer/rosenthal.html
http://www.montney.com/marine/iwo.htm
http://www.featurepics.com/PhotoReports/Rosenthal.aspx



This conspiracy theory is as stale as the "fake Moon landing" conspiracy.

There is another WWII flag raising, altering and restaging incident
which actually happened. That of the Soviet flag over the Reichstag.
The original photograph was altered, and a complete restaging filmed
and photographed. That restaging was turned into an Stalin propaganda
piece.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2010-10-23 10:00:36 -0700, Robert Coe said:

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


The thing to consider is calling what the flag was raised on a "flag
pole" is an error. It was not as if there was a permanent pole erected
with the first raising. My understanding is the first raisers found a
piece of Japanese plumbing pipe, the flag was tied to it and it was
raised. The second larger flag was attached to the same piece of pipe.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2010-10-23 11:10:14 -0700, John McWilliams said:

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.

Same deal with Holland-American.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/23/2010 2:10 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
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.


We like Holland America. Fewer kids.

--
Peter

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:32:03 +0100, Griffin wrote:
: On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:44:37 -0400, Robert Coe wrote this:
:
: 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
:
: Was he sober at the time?

Seemed to be. Remember, this was the father, not the son.

Bob

On 2010-10-23 13:27:00 -0700, peter said:

On 10/23/2010 2:10 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
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.


We like Holland America. Fewer kids.

Agreed.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2010-10-23 10:08:12 -0700, peter said:

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.

Those "extras" were a combat team, their support was need, since even
though they had reached the summit, the Japanese were fighting and
killing Marines a few yards from the flag site. They would continue to
kill Marines for another 3 weeks. One of the second flag raisers, John
Bradly was a Navy medic, and was kept busy. Three of the six were
killed over the next 3 weeks, six others from that second team, and
four of the first flag raisers did not survive, some "extras!"

Rosenthal was lucky to get the shot. he was looking away, and only
turned toward the scene at the last second, taking the shot without
using the viewfinder. He always thought the shot of the entire team was
to be the published image.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Iwo-group.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2010102400284075629-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2010-10-23 10:08:12 -0700, peter said:

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.

Those "extras" were a combat team, their support was need, since even
though they had reached the summit, the Japanese were fighting and
killing Marines a few yards from the flag site. They would continue to
kill Marines for another 3 weeks. One of the second flag raisers, John
Bradly was a Navy medic, and was kept busy. Three of the six were
killed over the next 3 weeks, six others from that second team, and
four of the first flag raisers did not survive, some "extras!"

Rosenthal was lucky to get the shot. he was looking away, and only
turned toward the scene at the last second, taking the shot without
using the viewfinder.

One suspects that in that location on that day he had a "target-rich
environment".

He always thought the shot of the entire team was
to be the published image.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Iwo-group.jpg

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:48:33 -0400, peter
wrote:
: On 10/22/2010 3:43 PM, RichA wrote:
: On Oct 22, 1:17 pm, wrote:
: On 10/22/2010 12:19 PM, RichA wrote:
:
:
:
: On Oct 22, 11:08 am, Alan
: 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?
:
: I saw that ad last night and thought it was cleverly done (if you ignore
: various insipidness like everyone wearing the same broad strip plaid
: shirts ... does their s/w depend on that?).
:
: Advertisement is about selling an idea. And the MS ad was successful in
: that sense: "you too can fix photos - and easily".
:
: To believe the advert was aimed at photographers would be a mistake, but
: then look who started the thread.
:
: Further, pretty much any advert these days is manipulated to death in
: all stages of production.
:
: The current Nikon ad with some idiot photographing everyone on a party
: yacht is much worse.
:
: Imagine if Nikon (or some company) ran an add showing how great a
: camera was, then said, "And when shooting people, put their heads near
: the top of the frame so you don't end up having a lot of empty space
: above them." Imagine, advice designed to aid composition...
:
: Your point?
:
: --
: Peter
:
: -obvioiusly eludes you. The perfect audience member for Nikon.
: Obviously no meaningful point communicated. Yes whatever your point is,
: it eludes me.

His point is that his points shouldn't be considered controversial, because
they're so easily eluded.

Bob

On 10/24/2010 9:53 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:48:33 -0400,
wrote:
: On 10/22/2010 3:43 PM, RichA wrote:
: On Oct 22, 1:17 pm, wrote:
: On 10/22/2010 12:19 PM, RichA wrote:
:
:
:
: On Oct 22, 11:08 am, Alan
: 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?
:
: I saw that ad last night and thought it was cleverly done (if you ignore
: various insipidness like everyone wearing the same broad strip plaid
: shirts ... does their s/w depend on that?).
:
: Advertisement is about selling an idea. And the MS ad was successful in
: that sense: "you too can fix photos - and easily".
:
: To believe the advert was aimed at photographers would be a mistake, but
: then look who started the thread.
:
: Further, pretty much any advert these days is manipulated to death in
: all stages of production.
:
: The current Nikon ad with some idiot photographing everyone on a party
: yacht is much worse.
:
: Imagine if Nikon (or some company) ran an add showing how great a
: camera was, then said, "And when shooting people, put their heads near
: the top of the frame so you don't end up having a lot of empty space
: above them." Imagine, advice designed to aid composition...
:
: Your point?
:
: --
: Peter
:
: -obvioiusly eludes you. The perfect audience member for Nikon.
: Obviously no meaningful point communicated. Yes whatever your point is,
: it eludes me.

His point is that his points shouldn't be considered controversial, because
they're so easily eluded.


Oh!

--
Peter