- Black Star Rising - http://rising.blackstar.com -
More Photo Funny Business at Vanity Fair
Posted By Scott Baradell On June 8, 2007 @ 6:52 am In Photojournalism | No Comments
How hard is it to state that your journalistic “photograph” is actually a photo illustration or composite?
As PDNOnline reports :
The print magazine, in which all the cover photos are reproduced inside, offers clues that portraits are composites, but never says so directly. “We decided that 20 different covers had a nice ring to it. That meant 20 individual photo shoots,” Graydon Carter writes in his editor’s letter.
Um, no — 20 covers doesn’t mean 20 different photo shoots, necessarily.
Vanity Fair has been known to blur the line between standards of photojournalism and those of the advertising world — last year adding the picture of an absent journalist to a group photo of Vietnam War correspondents.
While to some the failure to explicitly state that a photo has been Photoshopped may seem a trivial matter, where does it end? When do the offenses that get photojournalists fired today  become a normal way to do business?
It may be sooner than we think. I’m sure that 20 years ago, the journalists at CNN never thought — in a million years — that their network would become a 24-hour Paris Hilton talkfest. But little by little, that’s what’s become of it.
[tags]Vanity Fair, Bono, Photoshop[/tags]
Article printed from Black Star Rising: http://rising.blackstar.com
URL to article: http://rising.blackstar.com/more-photo-funny-business-at-vanity-fair.html
URLs in this post:
 Tweet: https://twitter.com/share
 over this ground before: http://rising.blackstar.com/how-time-magazine-went-wrong-2.html
 Vanity Fair’s: http://www.vanityfair.com/
 PDNOnline reports: http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003596032
 offenses that get photojournalists fired today: http://rising.blackstar.com/newspaper-not-on-the-ball-in-altered-photo-case-2.html
Copyright © 2010 Black Star Rising. All rights reserved.