Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Business
Truth In Photography
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Browncoat" data-source="post: 221207" data-attributes="member: 1061"><p>Just to drive this home, I submit to you OJ Simpson: </p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]59806[/ATTACH][ATTACH]59807[/ATTACH] </p><p></p><p>When <em>Time</em> magazine ran this cover, they gave their illustrator "creative license" to artistically interpret the image. This practice has been common with magazines for decades. All those beautiful women who grace magazine covers are altered: be it <em>Cosmo</em>, <em>Elle</em>, or <em>Sports Illustrated</em>'s lauded swimsuit issue. Skin is smoothed, blemishes are removed, and even jewelry is added digitally. </p><p></p><p><em>Newsweek</em> ran an unaltered photo of OJ's mugshot on their cover that same week, which was in stark contrast to the <em>Time</em> cover. Clearly their photo had been darkened and the prisoner ID# reduced in order to give OJ a more menacing appearance. This sparked nationwide outrage. Was <em>Time</em> trying to make OJ "more black" and therefore "more guilty", or was it merely trying to convey the dark overtones of the case? </p><p></p><p>Regardless of where individuals stood on the issue, it was clear that most people felt that a magazine of some reputation should not alter its images at all. Is it because people consider <em>Time</em> is an unbiased source? EVERY news source pushes a political and social agenda. Why is it okay to make women look like supermodels on magazine covers, but not okay to take creative license with a mugshot? Or is this taboo solely because OJ is black? What if a magazine ran a Photoshopped photo of George Zimmerman on its cover? Would there be outrage?</p><p></p><p>There is no easy way out of that discussion. There is no way to come out smelling like roses. Someone or group of someones is always going to disagree or be offended. <em>Time</em> took creative license and got some backlash from it. Did they sell more magazines? Absolutely. Were people lining up with torches and pitchforks demanding resignations? No. And while just about everyone reading this will remember when this incident happened, almost none of you have thought about it at all since. <em>Time</em> has endured, and will continue to endure.</p><p></p><p>We don't live in a Joe Friday - just the facts, ma'am - kind of world. No matter how boring or droll your day-to-day routine might be or how conservative you are, we all crave a little drama, sensationalism, and controversy. Slapping photography with a label or disclaimer isn't going to solve anything. It only keeps the spark alive.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Browncoat, post: 221207, member: 1061"] Just to drive this home, I submit to you OJ Simpson: [ATTACH=CONFIG]59806._xfImport[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]59807._xfImport[/ATTACH] When [I]Time[/I] magazine ran this cover, they gave their illustrator "creative license" to artistically interpret the image. This practice has been common with magazines for decades. All those beautiful women who grace magazine covers are altered: be it [I]Cosmo[/I], [I]Elle[/I], or [I]Sports Illustrated[/I]'s lauded swimsuit issue. Skin is smoothed, blemishes are removed, and even jewelry is added digitally. [I]Newsweek[/I] ran an unaltered photo of OJ's mugshot on their cover that same week, which was in stark contrast to the [I]Time[/I] cover. Clearly their photo had been darkened and the prisoner ID# reduced in order to give OJ a more menacing appearance. This sparked nationwide outrage. Was [I]Time[/I] trying to make OJ "more black" and therefore "more guilty", or was it merely trying to convey the dark overtones of the case? Regardless of where individuals stood on the issue, it was clear that most people felt that a magazine of some reputation should not alter its images at all. Is it because people consider [I]Time[/I] is an unbiased source? EVERY news source pushes a political and social agenda. Why is it okay to make women look like supermodels on magazine covers, but not okay to take creative license with a mugshot? Or is this taboo solely because OJ is black? What if a magazine ran a Photoshopped photo of George Zimmerman on its cover? Would there be outrage? There is no easy way out of that discussion. There is no way to come out smelling like roses. Someone or group of someones is always going to disagree or be offended. [I]Time[/I] took creative license and got some backlash from it. Did they sell more magazines? Absolutely. Were people lining up with torches and pitchforks demanding resignations? No. And while just about everyone reading this will remember when this incident happened, almost none of you have thought about it at all since. [I]Time[/I] has endured, and will continue to endure. We don't live in a Joe Friday - just the facts, ma'am - kind of world. No matter how boring or droll your day-to-day routine might be or how conservative you are, we all crave a little drama, sensationalism, and controversy. Slapping photography with a label or disclaimer isn't going to solve anything. It only keeps the spark alive. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Business
Truth In Photography
Top
