Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/09/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 07:20 PM 9/16/2008, you wrote: >Editorial - tends to mean - opinionated >as in >Editorial cartoonist >Editorial columnist > >here's the rules ><http://www.digitalphotojournalist.org/information2.html> > >who enforces them? > >Fond regards, >George You're right. Editorial photography can present an opinion - such as "I think these people in Honduras are hungry and could use your help." But anything that alters the truth - deliberately making the people look hungry when they are not or using artificial lights or props or poses to change what is really there - should have a disclaimer or explanation that what is portrayed is an illustration and not a true representation of what would have been evident if the photographer had not been there. I follow the Digital Photojournalist rules for any photograph that is leased for editorial or photojournalist use. Anything that is altered for stock or advertising photography use is labeled as digitally altered - even if I only remove a blurred seagull from the sky. I would never, ever set up lights to deliberately make someone look bad because I disagree with their political opinions - unless it was for an art exhibit labeled as such (I can't imagine even doing it for that, but you never know!) Tina Tina Manley www.tinamanley.com