Generally yeah, but in this case? If they 100% knew for a fact that the sky above his head was black, then adding some black padding is fine. Maybe not from a photography standpoint, but from a journalistic one? Come on..
This is why it's so contentious, it improves the photo but it's no longer original. Oddly from a photographic side that's fine, but photo journalistic standpoint it's no longer the moment that was capture but a modified version. It's a thorny issue with grey areas.
> Also there is another half-a-billion or so which thinks man never landed on moon. Citation needed. It looks to me like only a small gang of wingnuts are part of the "moon landing conspiration believers" (I never met one). Like s slight portion of those believing that 9/11 was a CIA/Israeli job, or that there isn't any biological evolution.
Obviously you live in US, get your information from mainstream media (instead of doing your own research on the Web) and belong to the upper middle class. That's in my humble experience the only type of guy, who would never meet anyone disagreeing with government propaganda. In Latin America, East Europe, Arabic countries, Russia and Japan ~90% of the people I talked to believe 9/11 was an inside job. As for the moon…
Haha, this is because you talk to the conspiracy nuts, so obviously you're going to find 90% of them react that way. It's called selective bias, or in this case.
Obviously your an idiot and get your information from conspiracy wackos and the x-files.
One idea: Use this picture of Neil shot immediately after his historic walk on the moon. After reading the Armstrong family's statement last night, that's the photo which expresses the legacy he wished. He looks ready to wink back. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5528HR.jpg
If I still worked in news (I worked in TV) I'd go with this, definitely. "Neil Armstrong, seen here back in the lunar module after his historic moon walk..." Also, the picture of Armstrong climbing back in the Lunar Module is fine. Conversely, to those arguing the use of a reflective shot of Aldrin's visor? I think that's worth including if I'd also included that shot inside the LM. An close up of this picture, showi…
What I love about the photograph is that it captures his total wonderment at having just fn walked on the fn moon.
He and Aldrin still have to get their spacecraft off the Lunar surface, rendezvous with the command module, fly back to Earth, and land the damn thing.
Generally yeah, but in this case? If they 100% knew for a fact that the sky above his head was black, then adding some black padding is fine. Maybe not from a photography standpoint, but from a journalistic one? Come on..
This is why it's so contentious, it improves the photo but it's no longer original. Oddly from a photographic side that's fine, but photo journalistic standpoint it's no longer the moment that was capture but a modified version. It's a thorny issue with grey areas.
"Burning" the edges [of the final print] to the extent it mimics the "deep black" of space, is in fact faithful to the scene. PJ's "Burn" the edges of news images everyday. That is, they "darken" the edges to create relative contast to the focal point they wish to show. This is not deemed unethical, but rather legitmatley "expressive". The terminology comes from film emulsion days, when the overexposre of the positive image to (unfiltered) light, would darkens the photosensive elemnts of the (white) paper. The fact that this was shot originally in MF film, makes me feel better about this, for some reason. The original negative would have been "clear" in this area.
> Comparing the photo that Neil Armstrong took on THE MOON to a sketch of his cat is silly, and you know it. Sure, but not much sillier that saying that putting up a picture of a different person is a "slight inaccuracy". > Also, every single image you see of Saturn from Cassini has been manipulated. Almost every photo of Mars from Curiosity is manipulated. So what then? Notice how I, unlike TFA, never said anything…
>and not creative image doctoring like pasting some space or removing a person USSR style. I can't possibly be the only person confused by the author's visceral reaction to pasting in a block of black above a photo, or slightly offended by your comparing it to USSR-esque person removal.
It's a manipulation of the truth. By presenting that image as truth you have lied to the viewer. There are (or at least, should be) strict ethical controls on journalists to avoid lying to their readers. That's why quotes are what the interviewee actually said, and not what the journalist wanted them to say. And it's why pictures of events are what was actually captured by the camera, with minimal manipulation for publication, but without adding or removing stuff.
> If the caption to the picture reads "Buzz Aldrin as captured by Neil Armstrong", who cares? I _effin_ care. E.g. I want a picture of Neil Armstrong for my article. Not a picture that _he_ took of somebody else. Not a quick sketch he did of his cat. I want a picture of HIM, preferably on the moon. That he "took the picture" is meaningless for the purposes of _showing_ the man in action. If I was writing about Knuth…
Find me a credible publication that will: A) Use the mentioned picture as the centerpiece to their article. B) State incorrectly that it is a picture of Neil Armstrong. Neither is likely to happen. It is just a common misconception that it is a picture of Neil Armstrong since it is the most famous picture of the mission and because people know Neil Armstrong. People see the picture and assume it is Neil Armstrong. Cr…
>and not creative image doctoring like pasting some space or removing a person USSR style. I can't possibly be the only person confused by the author's visceral reaction to pasting in a block of black above a photo, or slightly offended by your comparing it to USSR-esque person removal.
It's a manipulation of the truth. By presenting that image as truth you have lied to the viewer. There are (or at least, should be) strict ethical controls on journalists to avoid lying to their readers. That's why quotes are what the interviewee actually said, and not what the journalist wanted them to say. And it's why pictures of events are what was actually captured by the camera, with minimal manipulation for pu…
And what truth is that? There was nothing of any substance added or removed to the image, indeed adding the black only served to make it aesthetically appealing.
There's distortion of the truth, and then there's removing redeye from a picture. Which of these would you say this falls under?
Find me a credible publication that will: A) Use the mentioned picture as the centerpiece to their article. B) State incorrectly that it is a picture of Neil Armstrong. Neither is likely to happen. It is just a common misconception that it is a picture of Neil Armstrong since it is the most famous picture of the mission and because people know Neil Armstrong. People see the picture and assume it is Neil Armstrong. Cr…
The Atlantic doesn't state who it is, but Aldrin's name appears nowhere in the text: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/08/neil-arm...
Why is it that nobody could land on moon after 1972? After all cold war was still on. All moon landings happened between 1969-72. It is really unbelievable that US would forego such an advanced technology that nobody else had. There are many unanswered questions here.
Why is it that nobody could land on moon after 1972? After all cold war was still on. All moon landings happened between 1969-72. It is really unbelievable that US would forego such an advanced technology that nobody else had. There are many unanswered questions here.