Re: [Leica] RE: Cartier Bresson and the 6 exposures.

[Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net>]

At 01:52 PM 12/4/97 -0600, you wrote:

>   I was mistaken about the photo being posed.  Perhaps it might be
>legitimate to suggest though that it was a reenactment of an earlier flag
>raising made with a smaller flag.  I don't know, and I certainly don't wish
>to stir up an unnecessary debate on this. 

It is not accurate to suggest it as such. It had nothing to do with the
photographers there. This was just another moment in time. You aren't
reenacting when you're just upgrading the flag.

>   Based on this interpretation of the events, there is really no need for
>me to apologize for an "unwarranted attack on the reputation of a brave and
>talented photojournalist".  No such thing was intended.  Terribly sorry if
>some took it this way.  The example was used to illustrate how a
>reenactment of a newsworthy event can still be regarded as legitimate
>journalism, since the discussion had been about photographers who pushed
>the limits of journalistic integrity.  I used an inappropriate example to
>illustrate the point, and several LUG members quickly pointed this out.

But such a thing CANNOT be regarded as legitimate. The professional
standards are clear. Reenactments are not legitimate. They are not news.
Some TV photographers do it, quite often compared with still photographers,
but I would suggest they're not acting as journalists and most of them
aren't photographers, but reporters who are forced to use cameras. Many
good and honest TV photojournalists are just as serious and honest as most
still photojournalists are. It's the bad ones who end up giving the public
a bad image of the rest of us.

And you don't need to apologize. You intent was not to besmirch. You were
just misinformed. Now you aren't. <g>
==========

Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO
http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch

To say a human being is nothing but molecules, is like saying a
Shakespearean play is nothing but words.

Murphy's Law