What are some of the most misleading photos ever taken?

some people are fooled despite your best efforts.

Sure, then they are misled. But those who aren't fooled are not misled. That's all I'm saying. It's the being fooled part that's misleading, not the distortion part.

Sorry, Ed. I thought you were asking me a legitimate question and I was giving you a legitimate answer. Don't know what the dead horse is, but please don't explain it. And . . . thanks for nothing.

"Beating a dead horse" is an analogy regarding futility of thrashing a dead topic. I think we all understand what it means to mislead through photography.

Thank you for the lessons in vocabulary. Next time I will try to keep mine no higher than the standard established by the New York Times style book - 6th grade.

Next time I will try to keep mine no higher than the standard established by the New York Times style book - 6th grade.

The differences between the Times style guide and the AP style guide are small in number and mostly insignificant. Exactly what in the Times style guide do you see as problematic?

The differences between the Times style guide and the AP style guide are small in number and mostly insignificant. Exactly what in the Times style guide do you see as problematic?

I said would follow the NYT style, at least in terms of complexity. How does this suggest I find it problematic?

I said would follow the NYT style, at least in terms of complexity. How does this suggest I find it problematic?

You said "style book." As a professional writer, I've read it, although I've mostly followed the AP style book. Language isn't a moving target, if you say something, you can't ignore what you said.

You didn't answer my question. "How does this suggest I find it [the NYT style book] problematic?"

I agree that language isn't a moving target, unless you read nearly any text message thread by a teenager, or newscasters who think "busted" is a synonym for "broken." I confess that I am not a professional writer, nor do I play one on TV. I think for a living ;)

C'mon now. It's not a criticism, rather a reasonable goal. You probably heard it first from an high school English teacher.

Writing at a 6th grade level is typical for newspapers, magazines and especially business communications, where easy comprehension and fluidity is desirable. Early versions of word processing programs (e.g., Word Perfect) actually computed the grade level, with suggestions how to conform to a more readable version.

Other parts of style include the order of paragraphs. Newspapers and business letter must "grab" you in the first paragraph. Not many people go beyond that point. Academic letters, on the other hand, start from basics and build to a conclusion. All the good stuff is saved for last. Guess how that works out in the business world. Engineers aren't much better. I've read countless proposals devoid of paragraphs, sometimes punctuation.

Compare that to the dozens of invitations to join class action suits I get every year. Legalese is NOT intended to be readable. It's half Latin, and not very good Latin at that. Maybe writing style would make a good topic for a "misleading" thread.

I did participate in a class action suit against AT&T, by default. My share of the multi-million dollar judgement was $0.17.

I bought a copy of the NYT's style book for use in my freshman composition class in college. Perhaps it's time to dust it off again (real dust). It's on a shelf in a back bedroom, next to an equally dusty thesaurus.

You are a personality, Ed....like marmite a acquired taste..

One of a very few in a world of conformity., Sad thought.

Now when did that ever happen with a politician, of any flavour (strangeness, but no charm) ?

Are you equating politicians with quarks? I agree that they can be equally difficult to understand, but the concept of politicians being fundamental building blocks of the Universe is horrifying!

If NOTHING made with a camera is unadulterated, why would that make every photo misleading? Assuming one actually knows the difference between "photo" and "reality", one wouldn't be expecting a photo to be an exact replica of some sort of objective reality (if such a reality even exists). When I look at a photo, since I already know it's a two-dimensional image on paper or screen, that settings have been chosen, and that a perspective has been adopted, I'm not being misled in most cases. I know what I'm looking at . . . a photo. I am only being misled if a photo is purporting to represent something with reasonable accuracy or I think it's purporting to represent something with reasonable accuracy and it's not.

hello fred g:

i agree with what you have said and i do not agree with what you have said.

yes if you know what a photograph is you know by definition that it is an abstraction of reality

( 2D not 3D, black and white sometimes, not color, not true to life but maybe it can be &c )

but also misleading, or have an opportunity to be misleading.

like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U

i see and understand what you are saying,but ...

i view mislead to be the same as manipulate

and every image made has been manipulated somehow

whether it was the intent of the person who made it or the "medium" itself.

Got it. I don't view mislead to be the same as manipulate, so that probably accounts for a lot of the difference we're expressing.

I think, with a lot of photos, some degree of manipulation actually gets them to BETTER represent the reality they captured (if that's what the photographer is trying to do). So I think, in some cases, NOT being misleading actually requires manipulation. Think of very sunny days with strong shadows. Your eye will often see much more detail than the camera will capture. By getting as good an exposure as you can and doing a little manipulation of shadows (dodging, etc.) you can get the photo to look more like it looked to your eye. To leave that photo as it comes out of the camera could at times be the more misleading thing to do.

i see and understand what you are saying,but ...

i view mislead to be the same as manipulate

and every image made has been manipulated somehow

whether it was the intent of the person who made it or the "medium" itself.

Manipulation is an action a person performs. It is at least possible that a photograph may somehow be misleading without the photographer having any such intent.

This cover of a no longer trusted magazine:

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/natgeo_statue_liberty_sea_level.jpg

National Geographic’s Junk Science: How long will it take for sea level rise to reach midway up the Statue of Liberty?

This cover of a no longer trusted magazine:

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/natgeo_statue_liberty_sea_level.jpg

 

National Geographic’s Junk Science: How long will it take for sea level rise to reach midway up the Statue of Liberty?

Here's a wild idea... try reading the magazine, next time.

Is the dead horse moving yet?

Hit it again.