Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
It hasn't got dick anything to do with "integrity" of the image, or the photographer. A photographer was there, irrespective of the lens he used, he shot the scene. What's the hue and cry here that the shot should be technically perfect, compositionally pleasing, in-focus and "straight"? God, blah, blah, blah about silly peripheral subjects. Why should on-the-spot street/docu photography have to meet other people's standards?
Well, if it is claiming to document, it should not mislead.

I'm saying that generally, not that the picture originally posted is particularly misleading. Everyone knows that people don't tilt like they do in the picture, so it's clear that the lens used did not make the scene look as it would to a person standing there. Still, I think it would have been improved by cropping on both the left and right sides to remove much of the distorted look.

On the other hand, a lens can be misused in a way that is not as apparent. I am thinking of a picture in the local newspaper of the one-stoplight small town (ca. 8,000 population) in which I was living in the late 70's. The city council was considering a sign ordinance to regulate signs. The newspaper photographer attempted to show sign "clutter" by using a really long lens to create a much greater impression of clutter than actually existed. Several signs were in the image, some traffic signs, some building signs, looking in the image as if they were very close to each other. But it was not how it looked at all. The 6 or so signs in the image were actually along a distance of more than a long city block. If you didn't know the city, you would get the impression that there was significant sign clutter.
It was foolish to publish the clearly deceptive picture, because everybody in town knew that no place in town looked anything like the photograph; the picture lost its impact and just irritated people. Especially me. I'm still irritated by the lack of professional integrity it showed.