BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: Old Guy
Date: 02 Sep 06 - 01:36 PM

Good answer Dianavan.

You tell me I am inintelligable but you avoid things that prove you are biased against Jews and for terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 01:32 PM

Thanks, Arbiter, I agree.

There used to be a website by Jim Magin (Belfast) who tried to alert the world to digitally enhanced photography as a method of propaganda. The website is gone now and the use of digitally enhanced photos is widespread.

Its time for a law that requires photographers to indicate with a symbol whether or not the photograph has been digitally manipulated.

As a photographer, I use photoshop but I'm not a photojournalist. Digital enhancement is a great artistic tool but it has nothing to do with journalism.

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: GUEST,Arbiter
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 09:25 AM

Uh, back to photojournalism. If the photo has had it's content altered -- not just to correct the light or the color, but to change the meaning of the photo -- then it's not journalism. It's fiction or art or something, but not news. "Digitally enhanced photojournalism" is an oxymoron.

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: Old Guy
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 11:39 PM

Come in Dianavan. Calling Dianavan.

Should a certain number of Jews be slaughtered every day and drained of their blood to satisfy the Palestinians needs?

Like giving milk to the poor starving Palestinian kids for nourishment except they need blood?

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: Old Guy
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 06:09 PM

Well why don't ypu make yourself clear when you post?


"U.S./Britain/Israel resume diplomatic relations and begin to address their concerns."

Now address these concerns Dianavan:

"We are a nation that drinks blood, and we know that there is no blood better than the blood of Jews."

"We will not leave you alone until we have quenched our thirst with your blood, and our children's thirst with your blood."

"We will destroy you, blow you up, take revenge against you, purify the land of you, pigs that have defiled our country This operation is revenge against the sons of monkeys and pigs."
"Jihad is the only way to liberate Palestine -- all of Palestine -- from the impurity of the Jews."

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: dianavan
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 01:25 PM

I'm not referring to Tom Feeley.

I'm referring to that Old Guy.

Old Guy is that guy.

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: Old Guy
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 01:41 AM

Yup. Well he is the guy that produced that yarn about the faked, staged toppling of the Saddam statue and wants donations.

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: dianavan
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 12:50 AM

That guy is unintelligible.

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: Old Guy
Date: 31 Aug 06 - 12:28 AM

Tom Feeley of Information Clearing House:

"I have advised you before not to continue stealing my bandwidth by streaming video from my servers. I will give you 24 hours to remove all links to our video server from your website. If you do not comply then I will change the videos and stream obscene, pornographic videos to your WebPages. Got the idea. Good."

Information Clearing House

An alternative independent non-commercial source for news, information and insight.

What you should know:

This web site has grown out of my personal frustration and anger at the failure of traditional commercial media to inform the American public, especially as it relates to US foreign policy.

For more on the purpose and intent of this website click here.

This web site is the work of one person.

I am a private individual.

I am not affiliated with any particular political party.

I am not funded by any group.

I pay for all services associated with this site from my personal funds and donations from readers who support this effort to help inform our fellow Americans.

I am not independently wealthy. Web site hosting and data transfer costs are increasing each month. This is an expense I can not afford to fund on my own. I need your help!

You can make a one time contribution by clicking here.

Or Please consider becoming a monthly supporter. A monthly contribution will enable me to plan for improved web site hosting on a more secure server and reduce the number of successful hacking attacks on the website. To become a monthly supporter click on one of the following amounts. $5.00 - $10.00 - $15.00 - $20.00 - $25.00 You may cancel your subscription at any time.

Every little helps pay for hosting, bandwidth cost and other expenses. You may prefer to mail a donation to. Tom Feeley. Po Box 365. Imperial Beach, California. 91933 USA.

This site does not use banners or pop-up windows.

It is completely financed by myself and people like you.

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 09:31 PM

For those of you who think that only one side engages in propaganda by manipulating visual images, do I really have to remind you about the toppling of Saddam's statue?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 04:26 PM

Why bother enhancing photos, when you can just lie and get away with it?


"In July, respected news organizations like AP, the BBC, Time Magazine, ITN, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and thousands of others broadcast the shocking news that Israeli forces had fired missiles at two clearly marked Red Cross ambulances, igniting intense fires that injured their passengers. Accompanying photographs and then later footage taken by somebody described as a "local cameraman" showed a
badly damaged ambulance with a hole in the dead centre of the roof.

Yet as the blogger Zombietime.com has demonstrated, the whole story is a crude hoax. Photographs of the ambulances in question show no signs of blast or burn. Nor was there any damage to the floor of the ambulance -- as one would expect if a missile had smashed through the roof. The badly "wounded" and heavily bandaged ambulance driver who appeared in the stories resurfaced in other news footage six days
later without so much as a scratch upon him. The hole in the roof was not only perfectly round, but it matched exactly the size and placement of the ambulance's missing siren. The siren must have been removed some time before, because the edge of the hole was corroded by rust.

Although journalists were not allowed to inspect the ambulances themselves -- and had to rely on images supplied by Hezbollah -- and although the ambulance drivers' stories changed and changed again, becoming more dramatic with each retelling, every single Western reporter who covered the story accepted it as unquestioned fact.

So are reporters just gullible? The most troubling of all the blog reports, this posted at EUReferendum.com, strongly suggests a more disturbing explanation.

The authors of the EUReferendum blog painstakingly studied all the available photographic evidence of the damage done by the Israeli bombing of a Hezbollah compound near the village of Qana on July 30. According to many press reports, the Israeli bombs struck a three-storey building, trapping civilians and childrens in the rubble. The toll was estimated at some 60 people, later reduced to 28. The
photographs and television footage from this sad scene became some of the most famous footage of the whole Lebanon war.

At the EUReferendum site, you can see over many Web pages a compilation of evidence that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the images from Qana were not merely staged -- but staged with the active knowledge and complicity of the Western journalists on the scene.

Scenes were enacted and re-enacted; dead bodies were carried from point to point and then back again; Hezbollah spokesmen chatted on cellphones when they believed the cameras were turned away from them -- and then erupted in tears and anguish when they believed the cameras had turned on again."


from this thread- Thanks, Guest DF

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 10:48 AM

Corp. War Whores and anti war advocates both use lies to tell their truth.

I made about 1,200 enhanced political photos as you may well know.
My website is now shut down by Lycos Corp and none of my efforts can be seen anymore.

Am I now somehow dishonorable for making my verion of editorial photo commentaries?

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: Mr Red
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 08:10 AM

Conan the Doyle was not averse to a few of his own hoaxes.

eg the Marie Celeste was actually the Mary Celeste and even when the story was written most naval assessors would have put the whole thing together and concluded that carrying a cargo of industrial alcohol in wooden barrels with steel hoops would produce an explosive atmosphere and sparks - in a storm especially. Captain & crew (including his wife & 1 daughter) would escape to the lifeboat until they felt safe and if the lost the tow in the swell......................

Now who could possibly dress-up that story 10/20 years later and present it knowing people would think it was fact?

Which is exactly how newspapers try it on. One publishes, the next one reports what is published and it becomes de faco long after the libel case. If they had integrity they would publish retractions on the front page as prominently as they lie. They never do - unless (show me!) it is used to diminish the libel settlement - win win.

I'm afraid when you study engineering - the "way it is" is the only way to deal/use/cope/improve it.

State it is not entirely true and you have integrity, they don't do that. Not with pictures. The dust bowl pictures - now we know, they didn't then.

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 05:56 AM

Nothing new under the sun.... Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was taken in by a fake 100 years ago (Cottingham fairies) when everyone said 'the camera never lies'....

What goes around, comes around...

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 11:39 PM

Who's criticizing that Reuters photo enhancement?

As Jon Stewart pointed out recently--the guy had to put more smoke in the picture--otherwise, people would have just thought it was a barbeque--or electing a new Pope.

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: leeneia
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 06:05 PM

In 1967, I was taking and English class with a professor who was distinguished enough to have famous friends. He told us of an acquaintance who had won a writing award.

A photographer from Time Magazine came to his friend's place to take his picture. The photographer started asking him what he had done to get his picture in Time.

"Don't they tell you when they send you out?"
"No. They only tell me one thing. Is he a good guy or is he a bad guy."

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: Mr Red
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 02:01 PM

We don't have too many Newspapers in the UK - plenty of comics.

What has truth got to do with them?

Pictures are easier to manipulate now and they convey more credibility - unless you have first hand experience of the bastards.

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 11:01 PM

We had some discussion about this in This thread. I was really glad that Banjoest posted as he is a professional photojournalist.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 10:53 PM

Even old Ansel Adams had "techniques" to enhance his grand photos. A simple red filter to darken the blue against the billowing whiteness of the clouds.

History repeats! It just costs twice as much every time around...

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: Bert
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 12:07 PM

You never could believe what you read in the papers though.

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 09:29 AM

And particularly if it comes from Fat Old Woody, believe none of either.

Subject: RE: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: Old Guy
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 08:22 AM

Dinah Craik 1858:

Believe only half of what you see, and nothing of what you hear.

Subject: BS: digitally enhanced photojournalism sucks
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 01:50 AM

There's been alot of talk about the publication of digitally enhanced photos by Reuters. Yes, its the worst kind of propaganda but I think many of the photographs we are seeing in the 'news' today are manipulated. You can no longer believe what you see.

http://edition1.cnn.com/2006/TECH/07/13/popsci.digital.photos/index.html