Peter wrote:
> "Pumper Hinkle" <ralphcompton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:13ujlumg494f2c1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> Painters might say that the difference would be as that between oil
>> paints and acrylics.
>
> Funny, few complain when a painter alters a scene to present a scene of
> what he/she experienced. But, when a photographer does the same thing a
> storm is unleashed.
IMHO, it's because photography was held up to be a journalistic,
impartial recorder of the scene in front of it.
Anyone who has any idea about photography already knows this isn't the
cse, you must make all sorts of decisions before the shutter is tripped
and changing any of those could have totally altered the resultant image.
The stereotypical "joe sixpack" (whether he really exists or not) is
perceived to have this notion that photography is an impartial recording
medium that is used by the news media and other records of history.
If you start mucking around with photography and photographs too much,
it's probably seen as interfering with history or something equally as
daft.
|
