NHS trust faked MP visit picture

[untethered]

Then why do so many compare themselves to the 'real' pictures seen in magazines then? Seriously - how many people do you think look at a picture in a newspaper and think 'Has that been pshopped/why has it been cropped in this way' or whatever?

The degree of manipulation that's acceptable clearly depends on the context.

When we see Madonna on the cover of her latest long-player looking 25, we assume that it is due as much to the bounty of the photoshopper's airbrush and perhaps the surgeon's scalpel as to that of nature.

In this context, a degree of embellishment is acceptable and often expected.

When we see a newspaper photograph of John Prescott's fist connecting with the chin of a demonstrator and it's accompanied by a story outlining events, we assume that the image isn't the result of a carefully chosen angle or photoshopped montage.

In this context, we expect and deserve a more straightforward presentation.

But in neither case is the image substantially untrue.

 

[chymaera]

Then you're in a minority. I also think you're probably wrong.

When you see a photograph in certain contexts, it's likely that you assume it's "true". .

I don't assume ANY photo to be true unless I have taken it myself or it has been subject to expert photographic analysis. (A certain newspaper editor was sacked because he believed photographs that just did not stand up to expert analysis.)

 

[lewislewis]

Sorry to be all Welshie again, but our new government will be ruling out the internal market and use of PFI in the NHS in Wales. Nye Bevan would be proud! He would also be spinning in his grave at the rape of the NHS that Thatcher, Blair and Brown have presided over.

 

[detective-boy]

Obviously, I don't have any precise figures, but I'd say we can be reasonably certain that 99.9% of photographs are substantively "true" and represent broadly what they appear to.

You have heard of Photoshop and air-brushing, haven't you?

 

[detective-boy]

But that is the false impression the photo gives.

I didn't say it didn't ... I said that I doubted very much whether they cared about that aspect.

Why do always have to misrepresent what I say?

 

[untethered]

You have heard of Photoshop and air-brushing, haven't you?

Vaguely, but I tend to prefer the Gimp as it lets me write my own filters in Perl-Fu.

I think I've made it very clear that people's trust in photographs (and for that matter, written documents) is not based on their ignorance of the technical means for deceit but the social context in which those documents are created and disseminated.

 

[TAE]

I didn't say it didn't ... I said that I doubted very much whether they cared about that aspect.

And I didn't say that you had.

I'm saying that I care about that aspect.

Why do always have to misrepresent what I say?

 

[detective-boy]

And I didn't say that you had.

I'm saying that I care about that aspect.

So why quote my post when you are making a different point?

 

[TAE]