posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 11:34 PM
Where do I stand on the ethics of digital photojournalism?
The Apollo images are not digital in their original form. They existed in hard copy format for decades before the internet. The LRO photographs are
not photojournalism, they are research.
I think the Apollo lunar Hasselblad 70mm cross-hairs should always be preserved, and faithfully reproduced, from the negatives, and only those images
would be the true standard of all subsequent digital reproductions, with the cross-hairs intact.[/] . That goes for the Pixel Flag and the Black
Blob LRV, too.
They are, all over the internet and in hard copy form. You are the only person implying that every copy of every image is being edited. This is a
Where do YOU stand on the ethics of digital photojournalism?
Is it OK to sharpen some areas and blur other areas?
Who says areas are being blurred out? Evidence?
I sharpen pretty much every holiay snap I ever take. This does not mean I did not take them or that the events I photographed didn't happen.
I'd like to read some Apollo Defenders actually defend the Pixel Flag and the Black Blob LRV.
You haven't been reading the thread have you? The LRO images show Apollo hardware exactly where they should be, along with all the rocks and craters
So far they have all been dancing around the controversy of not knowing how many cameras went/came back from the "moon".
Nope. There are perfectly reasonable explanations that don't involve babbling about Nixon, smoking gun, blowing the whole thing wide open, and all the
other pseudo-journalistic claptrap you wheel out on a daily basis.
Now the Defenders are stuck defending NASA's contract with ASU to engage in the practice of controlling the narratives... this contract between NASA
and ASU is a smoking gun. All of you Apollo Defenders should just probably just give up.
Pseudo-journalistic claptrap. What you should probably do is drop the cliches and produce some evidence.
Removing the cross-hairs from NASA Apollo images is exactly the same as Winston Smith working at the Ministry of Truth.
No, it is some images having cross hairs removed, with that process publicly stated and explained. All the unedited originals are freely available.
How about you compare the edited and unedited and show is anything of any importance other than the crosses that have been removed? Take your time.
How about you look at all the ones taken from CSM cameras that never had crosses in the first place, the ones showing Earthrises and the lunar far
side that can be dated precisely and couldn't have been taken anywhere else? The 16mm and TV footage that contained no crosses but do contain rocks
and craters and hardware that can be identified in modern LRO photographs?
Evidence. Produce your evidence to back your claims. I have, where is yours? What work have you put in to back up your claims? None.
26-2-2014 by onebigmonkey because: mm