The problem becomes what is "slightly"? The other thing is does the newspaper risk losing any credibiltiy it might have? Look we know photos get selected,cropped etc. We know stories get chosen. They get edited. So nobody believes anything is 100% virtusos but some place a line must exist.
Getting back to your question. Yes a place exists. It isn't in a newspaper. It could be in any number of other publications but not a paper. Two cents.
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Robert @ Apr 8 2003, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Getting back to your question. Yes a place exists. It isn't in a newspaper. It could be in any number of other publications but not a paper. Two cents. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I agree to the "not a newspaper". I would go farther and say, "not any news publication (Time, Life, Newsweek, The Economist, etc.).
But where is it acceptable? National Geographic (I can't see them doing it, but would it be OK there?)? Air and Space? Aviation Week?
I'm not sure where it would be appropriate but I think some kind of labeling standard would need to be developed.
I think Gursky uses multiple exposure to increase the density of crowds and to create color patterns. His work is appropriate to art venues like galleries and museums. It's not presented as "documentary," so anything is fair game. The visual effect comes first.
If the _LA Times_ photo were part of an exhibit at a modern art gallery called "Stagings of Violence" or "Dangerous Compositions," where it was understood that the photographer was creating semi-fictional scenes to tell a dramatic story, then it would be unobjectionable.
I'm not sure where it should be presented but I think digital photo manipulations should not be called photographs.
There needs to be labelling or definition in the media and among photographers of what is a pure photograph and what manipulation is allowed( cropping, burning/dodging,etc) to keep it as a photograph.
Digital photo manipulations should then be labelled as photo/illustrations or some other name so that there will be no confusion on which is which.
I will start a new subject on this and see what others think.
Well, what if you don't point the lens at something that tells a different story than what you do point the lens at? "Cropping" vs. "framing" just seems like a technicality in that respect.
The very first time that I saw this picture was in the Chicago Tribune (Chicago newspaper) before it was discovered that the image was manipulated. There was something in the photograph that just didn't look right to me at the time; The soldier did not look in perspective to the rest of the picture. I then turned the page because I did not find the photo to be of interest to me, rather boring actually.
So they fired the person that manipulated the photo which was the photographer. Maybe the newspaper should have let the picture editor go for not doing his job-selecting a newsworthy photograph.
There has been a "suggestion" for a few years now by Fred Richter - that any photograph that has gone through a digital process be labled as such. The purpose being that ".....photographs do not lie........" in the mind of the general public. He has suggested that every published photo be captioned with a symbol that marks the image as changed or not. This is something that we will all have to face and deal with as digital technology continues to dominate news photography. Most of us, as photographers, seem to be more concerned with the differences between the reproductive differences of traditional materials vs digital rather than where this new technology is taking us. We seemly concern ourselves with the personal issue of these differences (ease of reproduction, archival quality, etc.) rather than the larger question of public trust in the image. Maybe its time to put aside the hype that the manufacters of these have worked so hard at to push this technology and begin to ask these harder questions - what should or can we believe?
Interview with the photographer in _Photo District News_--
(this link might change from day to day)