el_fang

<i>technology will challenge definitions - in fact it already is..</i>

<p>No, it hasn't. The problem with the unscrupulous faking photographs has been around since the invention of

photography itself. If technology has had any effect at all, it's simply been to make it even easier to deceive

people. The ethical standards of fair and accurate reporting have nothing to do with technology and everything to

do with the public's rightful expectation that a journalist should be presenting news in a fair and accurate way,

regardless of the technology being used for delivery.</p>

<p><i>An article for anyone who is interested in digital directions. Said article already admitted by writer to

have been made out of date by Red Camera Company's latest announcement(s).</i></p>

<p>Again, completely irrelevant to the subject of fair and accurate reporting. As stated by the <a

href="http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/self-training_resources/eadp_report/index.html"

target="_blank">National Press Photographers Association</a>:</p>

<p><i>"The advent of computers and digital photography has not created the need for a whole new set of ethical

standards. We are not dealing with something brand new. We merely have a new way of processing images and the

same principles that have guided us in traditional photojournalism should be the principles that guide us in the

use of the computers. This fact makes dealing with computer related ethics far less daunting than if we had to

begin from square one."</i> (John Long, NPPA Ethics Co-Chair and Past President, September 1999)</p>

<i>Suppose the Hubble Space Telescope photographed the moon of Pluto exploding while in close proximaty to Pluto,

itself. But, because of Hubble's narrow field of view, Pluto itself is not visible in the photo. Do you have a

problem with creating a panoramic photograph (taken several minutes, or even hours apart) showing Pluto AND the

remnants of its satellite in a single compilation/photo?</i>

<p>I refer you again to the statement from Reuters I quoted above. Composites are not a problem in

astrophotography as long as the caption clearly indicates that the picture is a composite. Techniques like this

are used all the time in astrophotography because of the technical issues involved in photographing dim objects,

or objects that emit radiation in the non-visible light part of the electromagnetic spectrum, at astronomical

distances. These technical issues make astrophotography is a very special-case scenario. Don't make the mistake

of extrapolating that what is specifically OK in astrophotography is automatically OK for

news pictures taken on Earth of Earthly accidents, murders, wars, politicians or slam-dunks.</p>

<p>A dinner out and a toga party are both social events, but most reasonable people wouldn't logically conclude

that it's therefore OK to wear a toga to all social events. In other words, stop trying to make generalizations

using a niche scenario.</p>

<i>The FBI and a law-enforcement museum have asked to examine my photo... and hopefully they will choose to display it in their museum or on their website.</i>

<p>I think that this is the main crux of the issue, which is the context in which your compilation is displayed. When it appears to the public on the FBI website or law enforcement museum (or on the pages of the New York Times, or Washington Post), certain assumptions are made by the viewing public, and those assumptions will be different than, say, if your compilation were to appear on the pages of the National Enquirer. In the former case, you really have to be careful and meticulous about full disclosure, so that people don't make the wrong assumptions and find out after the fact that they were misled. Again, what it boils down to is credibility (which the National Enquirer, incidentally, has little of in the first place).</p>

<i>Now that the image (notice I didn't call it a photo) has been compiled (notice I didn't say photographed),</i>

<p>Call it whatever you want; the fact of the matter is that the general public, upon viewing your "compilation,"

will treat it as a photograph and will assume (rightly or wrongly) that it is presented to them under certain

standards of historical accuracy and journalistic integrity. Making it very clear in the caption that it is not

an original photograph (assuming you have the ethics to do so) may not be enough to prevent a significant number

of lay viewers from being misled because your "compilation" - as you put it - was "flawless."</p>

<p><i>are you saying that the world would be better off if I destroyed it, along with the new information the

compilation holds?</i></p>

<p>No. If you are convinced that your compilation offers new insight and new information, the proper way to do it

would be to present the three original frames, with credit, along with your compilation (leaving the flaws in so

that the lay viewer can immediately tell it's not an original photograph but a compilation). You can offer, in

the series caption, your reasons for doing the compilation. You may take credit for doing the compilation. But I

would stop short of copyrighting the compilation since it is a derivative of the original work, which only the

original copyright holders of the movie have the right to, unless they gave you permission.</p>

<p><i>Here's a second thought to consider... If I decided to re-release the Newsreel on DVD so that 100 million

people have the chance to see it (instead of the mere 1000's that have on YouTube), don't you see any historical

benefit to that?</i></p>

<p>Perhaps. I don't doubt the historical benefit to what you're doing, because that's not the issue. It's the

<b>way</b> you're going about it that's the problem.</p>

<p><i>Please don't presume to lecture me on the very points I raised or attempt to put words in my mouth or make wild accusations regarding my knowledge or lack thereof, - it is quite rude and ignorant behavior on your part. The points I raised about long exposures, video, stitched panoramas - were merely obvious refutations of the ham fisted obnoxious and frothy mouthed exaggeration - typical of experts in forums like this.</i></p>

<p>I'm merely pointing out that astrophotography is completely irrelevant to the subject being discussed, which is news pictures taken on Earth, and the fact that you are ignorant for even thinking that the same ethical guidelines of acceptable post-processing can be applied to both. And who is exaggerating? I've posted direct links to the ethical guidelines posted by major reputable news agencies - all of which consider manipulations of the type done by Bill Streifer to be unacceptable in news photographs.</p>

<p><i>Reuter's opinion about astrophotography is irrelevant to me because it is irrelevant.</i></p>

<p>Indeed, and since Reuters as a news agency is relevant to this forum, it would logically follow that you and this forum are also irrelevant. So what exactly are you doing here?</p>

<p><i>For you to then attempt and slander my character based on some kind of Fang type ravings - is merely amusing. I look forward to the happy day when perhaps I might meet your good self in person - I am sure you would not be so casual with your criticism and so free with your online unpleasant demeanour.</i></p>

<p>First of all, written defamation is not slander. Anyone even remotely knowledgeable about journalism would know the difference between slander and libel. Second, it is impossible to libel an anonymous internet pen name such as "Peter A." Third, your playground-style threats only serve to further demonstrate the level of maturity and knowledge that you bring to this discussion - which is, thus far, exactly zero.</p>

<i>Mr Fang, astronomical events are newsworthy and certainly an important and fascinating example of documentary

photography.</i>

<p>Sure, but due to technical considerations (scale, astronomical distances, wavelengths, brightness etc.) it

becomes necessary to extensively process photos of astronomical events in order to even make a recognizable

picture. However, if you think that you can automatically extrapolate that it's OK to apply the same

manipulations to pictures taken on Earth of news events, then it's pretty obvious that you have a poor to

nonexistent understanding of the ethics pertaining to photojournalism, and I am personally grateful that you are

not a member of the press - one less Brian Walski to deal with.</p>

<p><i>I will refrain from making further comments.</i></p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p><i>the same arguments made by the "purists" here.</i></p>

<p>The final point I'll make in this thread is that we are not arguing from the standpoint of being "purists."

The most important asset of any news professional, organization or publication is <b>credibility</b>. You lose

that credibility when you present a manipulated picture to an unsuspecting public that is expecting you as a

professional journalist to present the facts as accurately and fairly as possible. That's why incidents like

this, when caught, warrant <a href="http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0407/feature4/special.html"

target="_blank">a public letter of apology from the news publication's top brass</a> and <a

href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/030409.htm" target="_blank">the immediate

dismissal of the person involved</a>. It's bad enough that our modern commercial journalism industry is rife with

conflict-of-interest and bias issues. We don't need to be doctoring news pictures to make matters even worse.</p>

<i>I would appreciate it if some of you would tell what you like about Eggleston. His work leaves me cold. I have

no response except "boring".</i>

<p>This was my initial reaction as well. The breakthrough came when I stopped trying to identify a subject in any

given Eggleston photograph and instead looked at it in terms of form, tone, line, color and composition. If you

find this difficult, there is a simple technique that should be familiar to you as a large format photographer

staring at a ground glass all day - look at his pictures upside down. If you still don't get it, then what's

there to say - Eggleston's work is just not for you and it doesn't have to be.</p>

<p>Eggleston is now my favorite photographer and I can see why he had such a huge influence not only on other

photographers, but on filmmakers such as Sofia Coppola.</p>

<i>As an aside - I coudl care less what reuters has to say about photographs made with long exposure digi backs and the techniques needed to make these work - including post shot manipulations in order to deliver pretty colour versions of Xray events for example etc etc etc - without post shot maniplation a lot of the stuff prodiced by astro-nomers as represenatational media - woudlnt exist.</i>

<P>Again, Peter - we're talking about a news event, not astronomy. I also think it's safe to assume that a whole lot more people in this business care what Reuters has to say, than what you have to say. If you want to trade jabs with me over Leicas et cetera - let's keep it over at the appropriate forum. This one is for more serious matters, and I'm afraid you may be a little out of your league.</p>

<p><i>unlike the bonifideniess of teh typical obnoxious journalist reporter.- the original 'ambulance chasers.</i></p>

<p>Your statement above pretty much tells the rest of us just how much weight we should give your opinions. Nothing to see here, let's move on.</p>

<i>How is stitching within a camera different than stitching outside of the camera, since both are done after the photos already been taken. The day the new Nikon model has Photoshop Lite Ver 1.0 built-in, we'll be back here debating this topic again.</i>

<p>What debate? This is simply a case of someone who has a very weak grasp of the concepts being discussed, and stubbornly refuses to learn. A debate implies an intelligent discussion by people equally in the know of the different sides of the issue being debated. This, on the other hand, is more akin to Special Education class. What does it matter if stitching is done in-camera or outside of the camera? That's just arguing semantics. You can dress it any way you want to, but the fact remains that stitching is manipulation, resulting in a final image that will fail an <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Imaging-Software/25738/Image-Authentication-Software.html" target="_blank">image authentication test</a>.

<p>The manipulation of the documentation of a news event is frowned upon by Reuters. It's considered unacceptable by the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/21/business/media/21asktheeditor.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin" target="_blank">New York Times</a>. It's grounds for dismissal from the <a href="http://latimes.image2.trb.com/lanews/media/acrobat/2005-07/18479691.pdf" target="_blank">Los Angeles Times</a>. And the <a href="http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/self-training_resources/eadp_report/index.html" target="_blank">National Press Photographers Association</a> calls it the reason why the public is losing faith in photojournalists. And I for one am glad that this thread now appears <a href="http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkkz6zxdJYHEBt1JXNyoA?p=bill+streifer&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-501&ei=UTF-8" target="_blank">on the first page of a Yahoo search for "Bill Streifer."</a></p>

<i>When I was growing up, half the photos in my high school textbook were altered in one way or another. For

example, I noticed that a president and a foreign official were rideing in an open carriage, and if you looked

closely, one of them had been "cut and pasted" there.</i>

<p>I find it interesting that you keep citing examples of copyright violations in order to somehow justify your

own - as if you already know that what you're doing is wrong, but that it's somehow OK because "everybody else

does it," and are looking for people to agree with you.</p>

<p><i>And do you see that affecting me emotionally-emotion-emo-tionall-y ??? lol</i></p>

<p>Emotions are not the issue here. Factual accuracy and journalistic integrity are. I'll also add that your

"lol" attitude is extremely revealing.</p>

<i>for example how long can an exposure on one negative be before it too doesn't suffer the same criticisms as

the stitched exposure in question?</i>

<p>It's still one exposure which was produced in the camera and not manipulated to be that way, in Photoshop,

after the fact.</p>

<p><i>Another ready example might be with video making technology being inbuilt into cameras - does a video 'pan'

not constitute a photograph? I believe that it certainly would be admissible as evidence in a court of law - see

the famous King case in la for example - what was the prime piece of evidence again?</i></p>

<p>Sure, until you import said video clip into Final Cut Pro and start deleting certain scenes or adding others

that weren't originally there. Let's take your Rodney King video example. What if I deleted the part showing the

beating and simply spliced together the part where he's ordered onto the ground, followed immediately by the part

of him being put into a police car? Or, conversely, what if I took different clips from several hypothetical

videographers at the scene and spliced them together such that a several-seconds beating becomes several minutes

long?</p>

<p><i>As you point out, a stitched image that consists of photos taken over a five-second period and a

five-second exposure suffer from the same arguments made by the "purists" here.</i></p>

<p>Again, no, it doesn't, because the image is simply a time exposure and does not require manipulation in

Photoshop to do. Besides, "stitched" images are not really relevant to the discussion because your image is from

"a well-known historical event" (newsworthy) and is subject to a different set of standards than pictures from

the Hubble telescope. The rules governing the usage, modification and manipulation of images or video of news

events are very clear. I've already referred you to the position of several major news organizations on this

issue. Here's another one from <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/"

target="_blank">Reuters</a>:</p>

<p><i>"Composite images that show the progression of an event (e.g. lunar eclipse, time lapse) must indicate the

technique in their captions. <b><u>They are never acceptable in a news assignment.</u></b> Captions must also

make clear when a specialty lens (e.g. lens babies, tilt-shift lenses) or a special technique (e.g. soft focus,

zooming) has been used to create an image in portraiture or on a features assignment."</b></i> (Underline and bold

emphasis mine.)</p>

<p>That's right - you just got pie thrown in your face by Reuters. Since you obviously don't have the

experience of a photojournalist or any understanding or knowledge of the issues photojournalists face, I'd advise

that you just

admit you're wrong and stop digging yourself ever deeper into that hole you're in.</p>

<i>Did anyone bother to get permission from the photographer before printing about 10,000,000 of these t-shirts?</i>

<p>No. But does that make it right?</p>

<i>When I applied for a copyright, I specifically excluded the three home movie frames from the copyright. And I

am only seeking that the "compilation", "panorama", "stiching together" of three frames be copywritten, not any

of the three frames, taken seperately.</i>

<p>How can you "exclude" the three home movie frames from the copyright when they are included in your

"compilation"? Can I "stitch" together clips from Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and E.T. and claim the resulting

movie "compilation" as my own copyright? Don't you think Steven Spielberg would have his lawyers crawling up my

behind in a New York minute? You claim to be seeking "opinions" hoping for some vindication that what you are

doing is OK, and seem to be unable to accept that people are telling you that what you are doing is wrong.</p>

<p><i>Can we stop now?</i></p>

<p>Can you stop now?</p>

<i>When does digital photographic editing become "journalistic"?</i>

<p>Your question is phrased completely wrong in the first place. It should have read, <i>"When does digital

photographic editing <b>STOP</b> being "journalistic"?"</i> It is generally accepted in professional

photojournalism practice that minor color/tone correction, levels and unsharp mask are OK. Your combining of

three different things, that happened at three different times (regardless of how far apart they happened) is a

clear violation of these ethical guidelines, and the only "historical" importance of this "work" is to represent

yet another example of misappropriation of other people's work (I can't believe you tried to "copyright" this) as

well as a blatant violation of accepted ethical practice in photojournalism.</p>

<p><i>By doign what you did you you have created a photorealistic illustration. I understand the point you are

trying to make but it simply isn't an instant in time that was recorded so it has no validity as a photographic

document of a split second in time historic moment, and it needs to credited as a photo-illustration.</i></p>

<p>I agree with this, BUT at the same time, a photo illustration needs to be immediately recognizable as a photo

illustration without even needing to read a caption. If you approach an average Joe or Jane on the street, and ask

them what a "photo illustration" is, how often do you think you will get the right answer? This is the

problem with "photo illustrations" (as well as the OP's compilation) - when the general public unknowingly takes

them face value and are misled into believing it's the real thing because they either didn't read the caption, or

simply don't understand exactly what a "photo illustration" is.</p>

<p><a href="http://debbie.popphoto.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/16/timecover_2.jpg"

target="_blank">This </a> is an example of another "photo-illustration" that was not sufficiently detached from

reality and thus led viewers into believing it was the real thing. The cover of a March 2007 Time Magazine

featured a 45-degree headshot of Ronald Reagon "shedding" a Photoshopped tear. There's also an <a

href="http://debbie.popphoto.com/deardebbie/2007/03/ronald_reagan_c.html" target="_blank">interview</a> with the

artist on the ethics of this particular case.</p>

<p>There is a <a href="http://rising.blackstar.com/why-is-photo-illustration-a-dirty-word-in-journalism.html"

target="_blank">more recent discussion</a> on the topic at the Black Star agency that touches again on what I was

talking about above. Of particular interest is the juxtaposition of a Black Star photographer's opinion that the

label "photo illustration" is sufficient, against the <a

href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/about/orl-ethicspolicy-080106,0,7234165.htmlstory"

target="_blank">Orlando-Sentinel's policy</a> on photo illustrations:</p>

<p><i>The combination of photography and illustration to create a "photo illustration" is acceptable in cases in

which the subject matter is complex, abstract or difficult to convey through documentary photography. However,

all photo illustrations must contain an element of the absurd so exaggerated that the image could not be confused

with a documentary photo. These pieces must be labeled as photo illustrations, and their use must be approved by

a supervising design or photo editor.</i></p>

<i>We are discussing the optical qualities of lenses here, not religion or philosophy.</i>

<p>Actually the similarities are there. It's kind of funny that even the people who believe in the "glow" can't agree on exactly what that "glow" is. Sort of the same as people who believe in the existence of a deity or higher being can't agree on if it's God, Allah, Buddha, Shiva, Ra, Zeus or whatever... the faithful just "know" their gods exist even in the absence of any objective evidence that they do. I guess it's called "faith" for a reason.</p>

<i>These rules were applicable in France since 1944, so to say, at least for the French founders of Magnum, the

copyright protection was certainly not the main reason to associate...</i>

<p>So are you saying that Magnum is telling a lie in its own history page? If you want to throw such an

accusation, don't veil or sugarcoat it. Just say it right out. Also, you seem to forget that there are things

called <b>contracts</b> that can modify or even invalidate rights granted under law, as long as both parties are

in agreement and said agreement does not itself violate any laws.</p>

<p><i>Nevertheless, most if not all Magnum founders were linked to press photography</i></p>

<p>Like I said, only because press was the main avenue for photography back in those days.</p>

<p><i>The 20 years old "innovation" you are referring to is as far as I'm concerned a regrettable concession to

our times, and mainly a financial operation far removed form the original spirit of Magnum.</i></p>

<p>So you'd rather have a dead Magnum as a victim of its "original spirit" than one that survives by changing

with the times? This sounds a LOT to me like the die-hard Leica fans who wish that Leica would ignore digital

completely and just stay with the film market, because somehow digital isn't in the "original spirit" of Leica.

How do you feel about the fact that many Magnum photographers do advertising and corporate photography on the

side? Is selling coffee in order to fund personal work also "far removed from the original spirit of Magnum"?</p>

This is the last message I will post on this matter because this thread was retarded from the get-go and I'd

rather go back to laughing at M8 owners. <a href="http://agency.magnumphotos.com/about/history"

target="_blank">From Magnum's own history page</a>:

<p><i>These four formed Magnum to allow them and the fine photographers who would follow the ability to work

outside the formulas of magazine journalism. The agency, initially based in Paris and New York and more recently

adding offices in London and Tokyo, departed from conventional practice in two fairly radical ways. It was

founded as a co-operative in which the staff, including co-founders Maria Eisner and Rita Vandivert, would

support rather than direct the photographers. Copyright would be held by the authors of the imagery, not by the

magazines that published the work. This meant that a photographer could decide to cover a famine somewhere,

publish the pictures in "Life" magazine, and the agency could then sell the photographs to magazines in other

countries, such as Paris Match and Picture Post, giving the photographers the means to work on projects that

particularly inspired them even without an assignment.</i></p>

<p>That's it. Nothing about being a press agency, or making "fundamentally honest" photographs, or "the horror of

using flash," or any other BS concepts some of you guys pulled out from your behinds.</p>

<i>And under this argument I fully second Rui Lebreiro on the ground Magnum has gone from a Press Agency to the role of an artistic agent for self-appointed "art photographers".</i>

<p>Again, please gets your facts straight - Magnum was never founded to be a "press agency." The sole reason for its original being was to protect the copyright interests of its members, giving them sole ownership of their images and allowing them to license said images to multiple clients and publications, a practice almost unheard of back in those days and pioneered by the original Magnum founders. This whole idea of Magnum being a "press agency" came about coincidentally because most clients back then tended to be newspapers and magazines. This was before photography came to be generally accepted as an art form, so galleries and museums were scarce on the short list of clients.</p>

<p>I find your lack of knowledge and calling of these people "self appointed art photographers" to be both ignorant and offensive.</p>

<i>Magnum used to be a Press Agency. A press photography is deemed to convey information if it conveys it with

art, it is a valuable bonus, not the main object of the job.</i>

<P>USED to be. That's the operative word, isn't it - USED. If you think today's Magnum is still just a "press

agency" then you're way behind the times. Magnum started bringing in members who weren't "press" in the strict

or traditional

sense of the word more than 20 years ago, starting with guys like Gueorgui

Pinkhassov and Martin Parr (whom

Cartier-Bresson described in 1988 as being "from a different solar system"), and

continuing to this day with new members like Alec Soth and Alessandra Sanguinetti.</p>

<p><i>Mr. Gilden can do that as long as he pleases, some people can see this as "art"(or be fooled enough by

fashion to see that as art), this isn't the problem... But he cannot pretend to be a press photographer and I

consider he has no place in a Press Agency.</i></p>

<p>Again - I don't think he or Magnum photographers like him are, or are trying to be, press photographers.

Agence France-Press is a press agency. EPA is a press agency. Reuters is a press agency. Photographers from press

agencies produce pictures that are little more than an object enclosed in a rectangle, that can be understood at

a glance by Joe Blow taking 2 minutes to browse A1 over his morning coffee.</p>

<p>If you try to approach the work of photographers like Gilden, Parr, Pinkhassov and Sanguinetti using the same

mindset with which you look at the front page picture of a newspaper, then you will be disappointed.</p>

<i>Haven't seen any test pics yet </i>

<p>Well then, what are you waiting for?</p>

<i>As for what "art" is, I find it amusing you should parrot a dictionary definition of art, ignoring all the

while that the definition itself has inherent vagaries that renders your response impotent. The most obvious

problem is the subjectivity of art. Not everyone agrees on whether a given process or product has artistic merit.</i>

<p>All well and good, but if you agree that art is subjective, then why are you expending so much energy trying

to convince me or anyone else what is art and what isn't?</p>

<p><i>Therefore, the definition does not tell us anything about whether a given work is art or not, because it is

up to the viewer to decide for themselves.</i></p>

<p>And there are many viewers have no problems deciding for themselves that Bruce Gilden's work is art. Your

point is?</p>

<p><i>It is not up to majority rule, nor is it the exclusive domain of art critics or art historians to decide

for others what is or is not art. And while it may be rather quaint to see a group of LA paparazzi hold up their

work as art, that is for the individual viewer to decide.</i></p>

<p>Well yes, it is up to the individual (and I am an individual) to decide. So you decide it's not art, and

someone else says it is. Why are you trying so hard to convince people that it's not?</p>

<p><i>I still hold to my claim that as a group, they do not view their work as art, at least not in the same

sense that a fine art photographer views their work as art.</i></p>

<p>Have you read their minds? How do you know that they don't view their work as art?</p>

<p><i>However, and you might be surprised by this--I would say that if there is anything artistic about his work,

it is NOT the photograph itself, but his actions that lead up to it. That is to say, the real art lies in how he

skulks about and flashes unwitting people in the face. The photo is only the lifeless remnant of what is in fact

performance art. A rather curious, provocative, offensive, and non-consensual form of performance art, but art

nonetheless. The photos, however, are utterly meaningless. I would even go so far as to say that Mr. Gilden

himself would agree with my assessment.</i></p>

<p>I've read many stupid things on this forum but this masterpiece just about takes the cake.</p>

<p><i>There are photographers right on this forum that take far, far more interesting pictures, in my opinion.

And you have no right to tell me otherwise. You can call me whatever you want and disagree with me all you want,

but you have no right to dispute my judgment. I recognize that his work may be valid and interesting to others.

But I have provided my reasons for believing otherwise.</i></p>

<p>I'm not disagreeing with you, because you can simply say it's not art and that's your own judgment and

prerogative. It's just that the reasons you give for your stance are hypocritical and much of what you say

(including your claims that you can read people's minds) is just downright delusional. I'd seek professional help

if I were you.</p>

Gilde<b>n</b>, Mr. Wang, Gilde<b>n</b>. A gilde<b>r</b> is craftsperson who covers things in gold and silver. If

you're going to talk about "respect" then at least learn to spell somebody's name correctly.

<p><i>In what way is Gilder's approach to the subject substantively different than, say, that of a paparazzo

working for TMZ? I would even go so far as to say the latter is more respectful of their subject, as they at

least have no illusions of the aesthetic merit of their work. Taunting and startling your subject does not in

itself make you an artist, nor does it make your photos art. It makes you a self-aggrandized psychopath with a

camera. And at least the paparazzi don't pretend their work is anything more than what it is--a cheap shot,

rather than cloaking it in the mantle of street photography.</i></p>

<p>Apparently much of the rest of the world disagrees with you. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art"

target="_blank">Art: the process or product of deliberately and creatively arranging elements in a way that

appeals to the senses or emotions, especially beauty.</a> And this just in: <a

href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1517607220080216"

target="_blank">LA gallery portrays paparazzi photos as art form</a>.

<p><i>You don't have to defend or respect someone else's work just because other seemingly important people have

done so. That is how we have so many famous but crappy photographers in this world, and just as many brilliant

yet unrecognized ones--because of the groupthink of a self-professed elite that has crowned its own. Prominence

in the art world is not about merit--it is about business and marketing.</i></p>

<p>Who's defending? It's pretty short sighted, if not downright stupid, to disqualify anyone's work because of

the way they happen to approach a subject. So you don't like something and don't consider it art from your own

narrow point of view - fine. Most people have a broader view of art, and they don't subscribe to your tinfoil hat

theory of art world mechanics.</p>

<i>i wonder if he ever set the flash off in an epileptics face, i'm sure that would give him a great photo rxn.</i>

<p>So much fail in this thread. Epilepsy? Wow. Photosensitive epilepsy is typically precipitated, in the few

(less than 3%

of all American epileptics) who are sensitive to it, by PATTERNS of flashing lights, typically video games and TV

screens. Although I suppose it's theoretically possible for a red-eye reducing pre-flash pattern (from, say, a

point-and-shoot) to induce a seizure in those so predisposed, I don't think there's been a single documented case

of an actual occurrence. If you can point out a credible source (say, an article in a peer-reviewed medical

journal) then I'll stand

corrected. Until then, please don't spread misinformation, and do leave the med-speak to people who know what

they're talking about.</p>

<p><i>I think not, because if you do legitimize it, then you must also validate tabloid photographers and

pedophiles who use telezooms at the beach.</i></p>

<p>Your statements are such a complete failure of logic and common sense that I don't even know where to begin to

rip you apart. I'll have to come back to it.</p>

<i>I don't know about you, and I even believe in NY it's "ok" if you shoot a flash on someone's face. In Europe it isn't, it's rude and desrespectfull.</i>

<p>Was the video shot in Europe? No? It was shot in NY, right? Because clearly you know Bruce Gilden so well that you are SURE he'd take the exact same approach no matter what country or culture he happened to be in.