John R. Owens writes:

As long as they aren't doctored or staged, photographs are about as NPOV as it gets around here. You _can_ make a POV photograph, but you have to try.

No, no, no! Not true.

The photographer first chooses what to photograph. POV #1. Then, a series of choices, and some of them deliberate, others just to try something different to better chances of getting a good photo--all of which affect audience perception of the subject. The result is invariably POV.

A short list of possible photographer choices affecting perception of a picture (only the ones I can think of until this song ends or I get bored, whichever comes first):

angle of view lens used distance from photographer to subject intensity of lighting direction of lighting variance in lighting film speed shutter speed depth of field framing :non-subject objects included :non-subject objects excluded color temperature subject's disposition (a quarter is a quarter regardless, but is it nicked, stained, newly minted? Jack Nicholson at 6 a.m. waking up does not look like Jack Nicholson at 2 p.m. watching TV, regardless of all other factors, including using identical lighting, lenses, angle, etc.)

Take a look at [[perspective distortion]] for just one example of why *there is no such thing as an NPOV photograph.* Some of them come close, most aren't in the same ballpark.

_The NY Times_ even ran a retraction once for printing a story with a photo taken using a wide-angle lens. It was of an unexploded bomb on the ground, a man standing beside it. The man was dwarfed by the bomb--tiny!. The *retraction* included the original photo and a second one taken of the same man, same bomb, but using a long lens--the bomb was slightly shorter than the man was tall. I would have liked to see one using a [[normal lens]].

kq

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com