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: 221327" data-attributes="member: 1061"><p>There's no need to tuck tail, Fish. Heated debate is a good thing, and this topic comes up rather often. There has been no name-calling or rules broken here, and I'd hate to see yet another actual <em>*real*</em> discussion on these boards fade away into the abyss in favor of hand-holding and let's all get along soup. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't like or your or mean disrespect towards you. Maybe you don't see it that way, but we are in fact talking about censorship here. There's no way around it. I'll play a bit of Devil's Advocate and tackle your question: <em>"W<span style="color: #333333">hy shouldn't transparency be the norm?"</span></em></p><p></p><p>Historically, any censorship movement has a front man. The guy on the pulpit with a bullhorn predicting the end if we don't change our ways. It has to be someone out there on the lunatic fringe, a figure of some reputation who has his own forum. I can think of no one better than Ken Rockwell. His anti-RAW stance is well known and documented, so with a tongue-in-cheek timeline, let's see how these events would play out if transparency were the norm.</p><p></p><p>2014: <em>Mademoiselle</em> magazine features a cover photo of Miley Cyrus eating a red Sno-Cone. A few months later, Ms. Cyrus discloses in a behind the scenes interview with <em>Rolling Stone</em> that she was in fact posing with a blue Sno-Cone for that photo shoot, but the photographer thought red would look better since it matched the lipstick she was wearing and gave the photo more "pop". </p><p></p><p>Ken Rockwell is sitting in his mansion, and upon reading the article, the collar of his freshly-pressed yellow Polo shirt curls up with rage. He abandons his normally calm sweeper salesman demeanor and his site becomes a beacon for anti-RAW sentiments and the effects of edited photography on society.</p><p></p><p>2016: Rockwell is elected to Congress. One of his first acts is the creation of D.O.P.E. - Democratic Organization for Photographic Excellence, which intends to serve as a watchdog group for edited photography.</p><p></p><p>2017: Rockwell lobbies for full disclosure of all published photography with the Support My Growing Family Act. The new law is passed, and in it are sanctions against RAW formats, editing software, and any form of photography that is not deemed as "pure".</p><p></p><p>2018: Adobe closes its doors, putting thousands of people out of work. Camera manufacturers including Nikon, Canon, and Olympus stop producing cameras that include RAW formats, and later that year several incidents of public camera burnings take place around the country as old DSLRs are tossed into the flames. The public rejoices in its newfound transparency.</p><p></p><p>2020: Rockwell is elected President and decrees that all citizens are to wear yellow Polo shirts, buttoned to the top. The only acceptable hairstyle for men is his own Howdy Doody style coif. Non conformists will face a fine, possible imprisonment, or be forced to edit his ridiculously long website for hours on end.</p><p></p><p>Save yourselves. Just say no to transparency.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Browncoat, post: 221327, member: 1061"] There's no need to tuck tail, Fish. Heated debate is a good thing, and this topic comes up rather often. There has been no name-calling or rules broken here, and I'd hate to see yet another actual [I]*real*[/I] discussion on these boards fade away into the abyss in favor of hand-holding and let's all get along soup. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't like or your or mean disrespect towards you. Maybe you don't see it that way, but we are in fact talking about censorship here. There's no way around it. I'll play a bit of Devil's Advocate and tackle your question: [I]"W[COLOR=#333333]hy shouldn't transparency be the norm?"[/COLOR][/I] Historically, any censorship movement has a front man. The guy on the pulpit with a bullhorn predicting the end if we don't change our ways. It has to be someone out there on the lunatic fringe, a figure of some reputation who has his own forum. I can think of no one better than Ken Rockwell. His anti-RAW stance is well known and documented, so with a tongue-in-cheek timeline, let's see how these events would play out if transparency were the norm. 2014: [I]Mademoiselle[/I] magazine features a cover photo of Miley Cyrus eating a red Sno-Cone. A few months later, Ms. Cyrus discloses in a behind the scenes interview with [I]Rolling Stone[/I] that she was in fact posing with a blue Sno-Cone for that photo shoot, but the photographer thought red would look better since it matched the lipstick she was wearing and gave the photo more "pop". Ken Rockwell is sitting in his mansion, and upon reading the article, the collar of his freshly-pressed yellow Polo shirt curls up with rage. He abandons his normally calm sweeper salesman demeanor and his site becomes a beacon for anti-RAW sentiments and the effects of edited photography on society. 2016: Rockwell is elected to Congress. One of his first acts is the creation of D.O.P.E. - Democratic Organization for Photographic Excellence, which intends to serve as a watchdog group for edited photography. 2017: Rockwell lobbies for full disclosure of all published photography with the Support My Growing Family Act. The new law is passed, and in it are sanctions against RAW formats, editing software, and any form of photography that is not deemed as "pure". 2018: Adobe closes its doors, putting thousands of people out of work. Camera manufacturers including Nikon, Canon, and Olympus stop producing cameras that include RAW formats, and later that year several incidents of public camera burnings take place around the country as old DSLRs are tossed into the flames. The public rejoices in its newfound transparency. 2020: Rockwell is elected President and decrees that all citizens are to wear yellow Polo shirts, buttoned to the top. The only acceptable hairstyle for men is his own Howdy Doody style coif. Non conformists will face a fine, possible imprisonment, or be forced to edit his ridiculously long website for hours on end. Save yourselves. Just say no to transparency. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Business
Truth In Photography
Top