Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You wouldn't get a Pulitzer for an admittedly altered image, Adam. I think the irrelevant point being made here is that if the photographer had erased the evidence - the original two images - and simply submitted the altered image, it's possible no one would have known the difference. (That of course overlooks the fact that there are obvious 'errors' in the altered image.) B. D. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Adam Bridge Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:00 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: RE: [Leica] fired for photoshopping 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 - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html