[WikiEN-l] photographs and POV (was: JohnQ / MaryMary - the clitoris guy)

[koyaanis qatsi]

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