Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/08/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Seems like this gentelman that altered the photograph was making an editorial comment, or perhaps propaganda. His photograph should have been on the editoral page. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walt Johnson" <walt@waltjohnson.com> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 1:12 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] Another Altered Photo > faking never should be....burning and dodging was never called faking. :-[ > > John Sluss wrote: > >> I agree with you about the news media outlets. But who took the photo and >> submitted it. I agree it has been done for years, but does that make it >> an acceptable practice? >> >> John >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walt Johnson" <walt@waltjohnson.com> >> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> >> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 12:33 PM >> Subject: Re: [Leica] Another Altered Photo >> >> >>> I'd be much more concerned with the integrity and honesty of those who >>> own the news media outlets. Besides, there is nothing done today which >>> wasn't done in all those yesterdays. Something else as well, when is the >>> last time you heard of a publisher or CEO getting shot in a war zone? >>> :-P >>> >>> Walt >>> >>> John Sluss wrote: >>> >>>> Any comment on the integrity and honesty of the photographer? Maybe >>>> all news photographers should go back to film and transmit the >>>> negatives to the newspaper? Is it time to look at all photographs >>>> coming out of a war zone as questionable, to be looked at with a >>>> jaundiced eye? >>>> >>>> Just a couple of thoughts. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walt Johnson" >>>> <walt@waltjohnson.com> >>>> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> >>>> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 11:13 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Another Altered Photo >>>> >>>> >>>>> I'm sure those in the unaltered photo were much happier being bombed >>>>> in low contrast. As I mentioned before, look at Christopher Anderson's >>>>> work http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/ on the Magnum site. Anderson, a >>>>> Canadian, should be relatively objective. His work seems to be >>>>> straightforward and for him, a very risky business. Wonder what >>>>> rationale Limbaugh would use prove Anderson's images fake? Perhaps he >>>>> could call on Westmoreland's PR expert who stated Nick Ut faked it >>>>> with his napalm shot. I've heard tales David Turnley missed the shot >>>>> loading an M3 but that Ut was also using a Leica? >>>>> >>>>> Walt >>>>> >>>>> Gregory Rubenstein wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Reuters has canned a photographer in Beirut for altering a photo, >>>>>> according to an article at the following link from MSNBC. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13165165/ >>>>>> >>>>>> This includes the photo, altered and unaltered, as well as Reuter's >>>>>> story. >>>>>> >>>>>> Greg Rubenstein >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >