Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ha! They're just getting warmed up! The only way to stop it is to challenge them with a new topic. SonC - ----- Original Message ----- From: <grduprey@rockwellcollins.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] manipulated photos > > Havn't we beat this subject in to the ground deep enough????? You guys are > re-hashing the same argument over and over and over.... > > ENOUGH!!! > > Gene > > > > > "Hagerman, Douglas" > <Douglas.Hagerman@hp.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > Sent by: cc: > owner-leica-users@mejac.palo Subject: [Leica] manipulated photos > -alto.ca.us > > > 04/04/2003 01:34 PM > Please respond to > leica-users > > > > > > > Re manipulated photos, everybody has seen those super-long telephoto > pictures accompanying stories like "new airport runway threatens nearby > homes," the ones that make it look like the airplane wheels are brushing > the suburban house. So if you select a lens in order to change the emphasis > of your photo, is that against the rules? Perhaps photojournalists should > only be allowed 35 or 50mm lenses, to eliminate this dimension of > distortion! > > Realistically, the editor needs to decide what he wants to publish, and > then make sure his reporters know the rules. If the reporter breaks the > rules then he (or she) is open to termination. > > For example, National Geographic didn't seem to have a problem moving > pyramids around a few years ago...and whether that was just to make a point > or not is irrelevant: The editor gets to decide what he thinks is > appropriate. > > Doug. > > > > > > > -- > 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 - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html