Times, they are a changin'. I'm a photographic realist as well, and from the very first I didn't like photo manipulation. In my time at R&R we took that seriously and only used that ability to lighten and brighten images of historic importance. Once or twice we removed a pole and changed a locomotive number to obviously coincide with an ad promotion, and that fact was plainly pointed out. But I've seen over-and-under scenes in our field published without note by combining two slides, so where there's temptation there's a chance of weakness. Advertisers manipulate images so routinely that almost none are untouched. The classiest presentation of such images I've seen in the big-time media is when the photo is described as "an illustration," and once even saw the "artist" sign the manipulated image. It's gratifying to see un-remarked manipulations quickly nailed in the blogisphere, pointing out the frauds in the major media. But in a case like FD&S for ARHS, we purists may have to change our thinking a bit. Now, I haven't yet seen the magazine and can't speak for the context or presentation. From descriptions we're talking about a DL&W train on the West Shore during the '55 detours. That actually did happen as I recall seeing in the 1980s a Bob Krone color picture of Lackawanna freight Fs pulling a Buffalo train up the West Shore in Bergen County. I don't recall the unit numbers. Now if an artist painted on canvas a scene with those same known Fs on the West Shore under the Bear Mountain Bridge at about the same time and day that the known train had been there, we'd be in admiration. In this case an "artist" working in PhotoShop created that scene in pixels. There's apparently no attempt at fraud, and maybe the fact that it's an illustration could have been more clearly pointed out. Perhaps there's a shock factor in having such an illustration appear in just about the last place we historians would expect. And perhaps if the "artist" chose to click the watercolor button to make that created image look like a Ted Rose painting everyone would be happy. But digital imaging is here to stay, and it does give an artist the ability to create ANYTHING in his mind's eye, and we can't stop this progress. We're all going to have to get used to it. Over the years I've had a number of ideas to commission paintings, and each one includes a scenario that I know had happened but wasn't or couldn't have been photographed. But I could never afford to commission the work. Ted Rose ca. 1988 offered a huge discount on one of my ideas in exchange for a magazine story about the research, but I couldn't then afford the $1200 (after what the magazine would have paid for). It's getting possible that one day I could create these images myself, hang and frame them as if they were paintings. Times, they are a changin' Our integrity as objective historians is becoming more important than ever. Do it, preach it, live it, and be critical of those who don't. Historians are going to have to consider the chance of manipulation in print and on line. Mike Del Vecchio In a message dated 05/31/08 06:37:06 Eastern Daylight Time, jananran_@_mymailstation.com writes: I feel that the doctoring of photographic material to produce an image of something that DIDN'T happen sets a very dangerous precedent. It would undermine faith in the old adage, "Pictures don't lie." The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List http://EL-List.railfan.net/ To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html ------------------------------
This HTML page is © 2000-2009 Blue Moon Online System and The Railfan Network
This page and the data contained therein may not be reproduced
for any form of commercial use without the explicit permission
of J. Henry Priebe Jr. or his duly authorized agent.