Re: [APML]: Astrophotography or Astro-Art?

[Jerry Lodriguss <jml@astropix.com>]

The Astro-Photography Mailing List
------------------------------------


>>>>>Well sure it does. If I burn a distracting background or person out of
existence in a print, which as a news photographer I am sure you have done
(as have I), then you have altered the content.<<<
>
>
>Frankly, that comment has me disturbed. You have shot news, and removed
>subject content? Which publications have you shot for?? In my field,
>that is considered a firing offense. Shooter lose their jobs over an
>alteraton of that nature. I know a shooter who lost his job just for
>altering the license plate of a car at a ralley.

Over the last 22 years as a photojournalist, I have shot for the New York
Times, Washington Post, The Associated Press, United Press International,
The Philadelphia Inquirer, Sports Illustrated, National Geographic, Time,
Newsweek, etc etc etc.

I have burned down backgrounds to eliminate objects, and I have absolutely
no apologies for it.

I guess I must be older than you.  Go back into the POY books from years
ago and you will find numerous examples of photojournalists burning objects
out of the backgrounds. Times change as do moral and ethical standards.
Dorothea Lange posed "Migrant Mother", and the FSA photographers posed
almost everything they shot, and that body of work is considered
documentary photojournalism.

One of the "gods" of photojournalism, Eugene Smith, posed tons of his photos.

This kind of stuff is considered a firable offense now days in some
quarters. But only by those who pretend that photojournalism and
photojournalists record objective reality without editorializing, or those
too ignorant to know the difference.

You are not naive enough to believe that an image that you "make" records
an objective reality without your opinions and viewpoint coloring it do
you?  You change that "objective" reality in numerous ways, such as your
selection of focal length of your lens.  If you shoot with a long telephoto
like a 400mm at f/2.8 on a subject that is close, you totally drop out the
background. That is not the way your eye sees, so you have changed the
reality of the situation. What is the conceptual difference in doing that
and burning out the background?  Are you going to say, "I didn't do it, the
lens did it?

At my paper the rule is, if you can do it in the wet darkroom, you can do
it in Photoshop. This is ludicrous.  Ever see what Jerry Uelsmann was
capable of in a wet darkroom?

Where I draw the line is, is it done with an intent to deceive? 

 I have a zen philosophy where I believe there is no reality, so how can
you alter it? <G>

-----------------------------------

Recently we had a "fairness" seminar at the Philadelphia Inquirer where we
discussed being ABSOLUTELY fair to both sides in a story.  Example: Cop
shoots a kid. Cop says, kid had a gun. Kid says he did not. You are
supposed to tell both sides without editorializing. Seems fair.

Another example: A "doctor" claims he has a holistic, homeopathic cure for
cancer. The AMA says it's a fraud and if people use it they will die.  Now,
if you present both sides here with ABSOLUTELY equal weight, and the
"doctor" is a quack, then you actually give credibility to him by treating
him absolutely equal, which is an incredibly dangerous thing to do. 

Do hate groups deserve absolutely equal time to spew their venom?

One of the reasons no one believes journalists anymore is exactly because
they claim absolute objectivity when in fact it does not exist. What they
really should be doing is intelligently evaluating various claims and then
making recommendations to a public that is poorly educated and does not
have the time to do the research that newspapers have the resources to
undertake.  They should be an advocate for common sense and the scientific
method instead of running every UFO story they hear about because it's
"interesting" and will sell papers.

>
>In keeping with the context of your statement, "as a news photographer"
>No. I have never done that, nor do I advocate anyone finding acceptance
>in that behavior. It has been done, granted. Please don't tell me that
>is all the justification you need. 


When you take a portrait, I'll just bet that you have never posed a
subject.  So here you are altering reality. Is that a firable offense too?
Why not?

Have you ever shot a photo in black and white?  Is that altering nature?
We see in color you know!



>Cropping is a good example. If you crop out an annoyinng star have you
>altered the content of that image? Of that galaxy? No. You have simply
>highlighted the portion of that image which most interests you. If the
>same crop tells those who view your work the star did not exist, then it
>becomes a fundemental lie. Therefore you have altered the context and
>content.

So if I burn out a distracting background that is bad, but if you crop it
out, or alter your camera angle to remove it, that is ok?  Yet the intent
is exactly the same.

There is no such thing as objective photojournalism.

The funny thing is, I will bet that despite my arguments here, I am even
more of a purist than you are.  Unless I am shooting a portrait, I will not
pose ANYTHING.  I don't care if I don't come back with a photo.  If a
situation is not visually interesting on its own, or they don't give me
enough time for something visually interesting to develop, then I just
don't come back with a photo.  

I draw a strict line between portraits and everything else. I WILL pose a
portrait, but I make it abundantly clear in the caption that the image is
posed.  In portraiture, I am not a photojournalist anymore, I am an artist
and I don't pretend to be anything else, let alone objective.

Because there is so much pressure on "photojournalists" these days to
"make" photos that tell the entire story in a single image because of space
limitations, I have specialized in sports action.  Sports action
photography is one of the very few remaining pure documentary types of
photography that is widely published these days.  The moment happens and is
gone. You either record it or you miss it.

If you want to reply to this, please lets take it to private email as it
doesn't seem to have much to do with astrophotography anymore. <G>

And after Chuck's color tests, we should all realize that there is just NO
way to accurately record color in emission line objects, so I guess all of
our photos of such objects are lies, pretty much like Ansel Adams,
Moonrise. And I have a print of that hanging on my wall.<G>


Take care,

Jerry
mailto:jml@astropix.com
Web page: http://www.astrosurf.com/astropix/index.html 
Astrophotography,Photoshop enhancement tips and techniques