Luis Acosta writes “Ken Light, whose 1971 photo of John Kerry was digitally doctored to make it appear that Kerry shared a stage with Jane Fonda and then distributed widely throughout cyberspace, should be applauded for maintaining a good archive of his analog photo negatives, which has enabled him to refute the hoax. He writes about the lessons for his Ethical Problems in Photography class in
today’s Washington Post
(free registration required).
At age 20 Light knew that “negatives are sacred, and that every roll of film must be carefully filed away for future use.” He notes “how easy and professional-looking these distortions of truth have become in the age of Photoshop.” Light says that this hit home for him when he found that “somebody had pulled my Kerry picture off my agency’s Web site, stuck Fonda at his side, and then used the massive, unedited reach of the Internet to distribute it all over the world.””
Re: Analog Archive Contradicts Photo Hoax
This photo of Kerry and Jane Fonda is no hoax.
Re: Analog Archive Contradicts Photo Hoax
And all that photo proves is that Mr. Kerry was in the same audience as Ms. Fonda. They’re hardly within speaking distance of one another.
The point of the article was about photo manipulation used to try and discredit Mr. Kerry in the eyes of some Vietnam Veterans. The point wasn’t that Mr. Kerry attended, and spoke at, the same rally that Ms. Fonda was at. I would assume that he wouldn’t deny he’d been there.
I think this just brings home how careful one has to be when doing research on the Internet. And how easy it is for even images to be manipulated, never mind information.
s/
Re: Analog Archive Contradicts Photo Hoax
Which proves, of course, that John Kerry hates America.
The doctored photograph
And this is library news because. . . ?
Re:The doctored photograph
In my mind, it’s library news because a library might have photo collections, might convert them to digital form, and might then be tempted to discard the originals or fail to preserve them. The story shows why the originals are still needed.
better link0 52011-3111.jpg
http://images.washtimes.com/photos/full/20040210-
from:1 1-3111.htm
http://washtimes.com/national/photo_20040210-0520
I haven’t registered, so I don’t have a link to the ?other? photograph.
— Ender, Duke_of_URL
because Archivists are information scientists… 🙂
As the lisnews logo says
— Ender, Duke_of_URL
Re:The doctored photograph
With this reasoning, librarians should be paying far more attention to genealogists who use documents, photo archives, census materials, etc. than to politicians. Columbus Public has a photo collection dealing with local history, but it is probably the only one with a significant collection in this metropolitan area of one million plus. Original negatives need to be maintained by the artist, not the libraries because the copyright belongs to the artist.
My husband is an architect. Although he may donate some of the original plans to a local historical society (for work done in a community on the national register), no one is responsibile for his copyright materials except him.
Pointedly political posts belong with your journal where you have free rein to either support of condemn Kerry.
Re:The doctored photograph
School librarian here…it’s the information age. World breaks like a saltine; those who know how to find information, what it is, means and most important who said it. Then there are those that don’t have a clue. It’s simple…Masters or slaves. It’s important to make our kids masters. I’m one of those librarians following your kid around saying prove it…