While I kinda agree with you, the issue becomes is, how does one, without spending lots of time to examine each and every photograph in a large format, know if its been tampered with?

If someone is willing to photograph something and edit it to suit there tastes, its somewhat of a slippery slope. Where does one draw the line? Cause that line, like in many things, has a habit to move and shift with time.

Dimitri

Dimitri wrote:

While I kinda agree with you, the issue becomes is, how does one, without spending lots of time to examine each and every photograph in a large format, know if its been tampered with? If someone is willing to photograph something and edit it to suit there tastes, its somewhat of a slippery slope. Where does one draw the line? Cause that line, like in many things, has a habit to move and shift with time. Dimitri

I think, and this is just my opinion from observation, but I think that most manipulation in journalism comes out of , greed or fear of loss.

Either they do it as a way to increase readers, viewers, status, fame, etc.... or they do it because they fear the loss of their jobs or fame or status, etc.... Basically the core motivator for most people. Just some dont know when to draw the line. As you said.


I also think that the technological ability to tamper with photos, writings, documents, audio and video recordings, really makes it hard to know what is real and what isn't. In the early days it was pretty easy to find out if something was tampered with, but nowadays, its near impossible, if not impossible. This is why I could see many common forms of evidence in courts being tossed out sometime in the near future. You just cant tell if they have, or haven't been doctored. same goes with the news, the gov, corporations, etc..... we are really in the Wag the Dog world now. And it will be harder to know the truth every day.

Dimitri,
I was just recalling that years ago , my dad was the chief engineer at the local NBC affiliate in St. Louis, and I was just a young pup trying to find my way. [ still am but thats another story lol ] anyway, the top morning news video editor said he "would train me in the ways of news manipulation." I looked at him with a puzzled look and ask" manipulation?"
His response has stuck with me ever since.
And I paraphrase as it was over 2 decades ago, but here goes...

" Say an event happens over a 24 hour period. A ENG {electronic news gathering}crew is sent out to cover it. The reporter ask 10 minutes of questions at the most. The camera man shoots 20 minutes of video , at the most. They can it, and bring it back to the newsroom. then a group of editors and producers quickly review the story and scribble down what they want in words, and in video. They bring you the 20 minute tape and tell you to cut it down to 20 to 30 seconds, and make it fit their script. "

that is news manipulation. He also showed me how to take the same raw footage, and within 10 minutes he made the video tell 3 completely different stories, just in the way he ordered the frames of events. You can make a criminal a hero, or a hero a criminal. Its all how you tell the story.

Ive never really viewed news the same ever since then. But its done to get viewers, which equates to advertisers, which equates to $$$$..
Or as Ruppert Murdoch so famously said " there is no law that says the news much be factual" He said it publicly, but all news outlets appear to feel the same way.


another amusing side note is when my friends would ask my Dad why there is so much crap on TV these days { and this was in the 1970/80s} his response was, " if the pigs want slop, who are we to deny them of it"
And I think thats never been more true than todays tv with shows like Jersey shores and America got talent and so on.
Again, my opinion.

Dan, I use a Sony Alpha. A few hundred bucks. I sure like the fact that you can take a ton of photos without reloading.

I must admit that I adjusted the exposure some to compensate for the back lighting. Forgive me D...

Dan,

I agree completely with that, news fits someones agenda before being aired or published, hence why in another post I mentioned reading as many sources as possible to see "more" of the story. Still I'd hope, at least the photographs are not complete forgeries, as there is a difference between making a story "sound right" and just outright lying, which is what "manipulation" is about. You can manipulate something to be different, without resorting to outright lying or deceiving people. Which can be said that Photoshop and the like allow one to do with ease.

And yes media today with the TV shows is going down hill fast.

Dimitri

As far as photo editing goes... If you're talking about evidence or news than I say no, except to adjust exposure for clarity. Never to change content. If you're talking about photos for entertainment who really cares?

I don't think anyone counts exposure changing as "editing" considering, mistakenly setting the shutter speed or F-stop to something different then the ideal EV will give you the same effect.

Or worse, shooting ISO 800, at ISO 640 for a finer grain, the horror.

Dimitri

Awesome pics!

That wingwalker was nutz!!!

P-51 noises give me goosebumples....LOVE it.