Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/08/07

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Another Altered Photo
From: jsluss at hughes.net (John Sluss)
Date: Mon Aug 7 11:51:32 2006
References: <44D74008.27784.2F4EDB@localhost>

Landis may have taken a little extra testosterone to stay in the race. He 
just wanted to stay in the race afterall. If so he cheats. One can make up a 
lot of excuses, but the bottom line is he was fired for altering a 
photograph.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "R. Clayton McKee" <leica@rcmckee.com>
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Another Altered Photo


> On 7 Aug 2006 at 13:40, John Sluss wrote:
>
>> Seems like this gentleman that altered the photograph was making an
>> editorial comment, or perhaps propaganda. His photograph should have been 
>> on
>> the editorial page.
>
> I'm going to trot WAY out onto this limb here, with the same evidence
> everyone else on the list has (which is to say no evidence at all
> except this explanation makes sense to me personally), and say that I
> suspect this was probably more marketing than editorial.
>
> Look, the guy's a stringer for a major service in the middle of a
> MAJOR event.  There are probably a couple of hundred other major
> shooters there, probably a fair number standing within a few meters
> of him when he got this, all shooting merrily away at the same
> skyline with the same smoke.  And so one of two things happens...
> either before or after this shot, there's a moment or two when
> there's honestly more smoke in the sky -- and he missed the shot (but
> a bunch of the other guys with bigger cards and batteries got it) OR
> he knows everyone else has pretty much the same thing he's got.
>
> Thing is, if you're freelance, if you're in the same place as the
> bigfoots and you DON'T get stuff as good as they do (especially in
> situations like this that are probably fairly simple shots with
> comparatively low risk) you get no more phone calls, especially if
> you're tied to one of the major wires.  And if you don't have BETTER
> than the staffers and the contract guys have,  you don't sell much in
> today's world, because the OTHER guys' work is already paid for and
> you're an extra expense.
>
> So he's got to have at LEAST as good as theirs to keep his string,
> and better than theirs to get much in reuse in those conditions, and,
> well,  what's a desperate, on-the-edge-of-nowhere stringer to do?
> "Well, it WAS like this two minutes later; nobody'll know..."
>
> And I suspect that if his laptop were better his shot probably
> wouldn't look that much different from everyone else's....
>
> And nobody would know he was a fake and a liar.  With the right
> connections he could even run for the presidency in most places...
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> R. Clayton McKee                           http://www.rcmckee.com
> Photojournalist                               rcmckee@rcmckee.com
> P O Box 571900                           voice/fax   713/783-3502
> Houston, TX 77257-1900                   cell phone #  on request
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 



Replies: Reply from crgrbrts at verizon.net (Craig Roberts) ([Leica] Another Altered Photo)
Reply from leica at rcmckee.com (R. Clayton McKee) ([Leica] Another Altered Photo)
Reply from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] Another Altered Photo)
In reply to: Message from leica at rcmckee.com (R. Clayton McKee) ([Leica] Another Altered Photo)