>> >
>> http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/
>> >
>> > interesting point the author makes; for you trekkies, as picard says,
>> a
>> > lie of omission is still a lie. not meaning to be political.
>>
>> The author makes an interesting point about how the cropping can
>> change the context of a photo and how it's perceived. But, he then
>> proceeds to make a number of statements that *seem* to be attempting
>> to prove how the "left-wing media" manipulate the "truth". But, he
>> makes the same mistake he's accusing the media of making. He shows you
>> a number of other photos of the same event and uses them to back his
>> own agenda without providing any actual facts to back it up.
>>
> [big snip]
As always, interesting comments follow a controversial posting, but in
this case, I really didn't mean to incite opinions on whether the press
photog or the author above was right or wrong. Neither did I wish to
discuss if one party is just as guilty as the other, etc etc. It seems
some of the discussions I'm having with friends offlist on this matter all
boil down to what is quoted above, and very quickly diverge from the
reason I sent the link around (see subject) to what the readers' perceive
filtered through their political leanings. That itself is indicative of
something.
Ignoring the staged rally organized by communist party line of thought,
the primary reason this is interesting, to me, is how the image is
drastically changed by cropping. Photographers have that option and can
put it to good use at their discretion. A strong image, uncropped, becomes
a strong image, but for the other side. Fascinating, regardless.
--
new email address: iddibhai at verizon dot net
photoblog: http://iddibhai.blogspot.com
aim:iddibhai | icq:104079359
dum spiro, spero
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|