Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 4/2/03 Frank Filippone wrote: > >BTW, if you actually saw the images ( LA Times today, page A6) you would >notice that the actual changes made did not change the intent or message of >the photo. It improved the image. Now, if he had submitted the unaltered >image to the paper, and sold the changed image to someone else, he would >have his job and $$$ too, and maybe, a Pulitzer. > I find this disturbing - how could you get a Pulitzer for news photography - or whatever - with a manipulated image? It just seems WRONG to me. Either what is printer (or shown or...) is real or its not. Otherwise it's like combining various sources into a single fictitous "source" and claming its a real person. Either way it's a lie. Although I'm sure there are shades of gray that can be constructed to make a mockery of what I've just written...the real world has a way of making that happen. Sigh. Adam - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html