Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm delighted that you've now shared some personal context as it relates to this discussion; rather than abstract opinions on truth, right and wrong. In the Navy and as a student within a specific program you understand, choose to accept and work within rules set forth by those institutions. Great. That makes perfect sense. I think it important to remember in this discussion that the photographer who exposed the frame used on The Economist cover did not eliminate the people and then submit the photograph. So he did nothing questionable or "wrong" by any standards. As I understand it, editors and art directors at The Economist made the decisions regarding simplification, placement of typography, and editorializing which would result from those alterations to the original frame. Editors and art directors at that publication have been doing this for almost a century. This publication is famous for their creative, editorial illustrative covers. Nothing new or shocking in this. They've been doing it long before Photoshop. Having attended and taught college level art and design courses, as well as college level journalism courses, I think it important to recognize the different functions of journalists, photographers, art directors, illustrators, photo illustrators, cartoonists, editorial cartoonists, editorial illustrators, editors, publishers, et al; as well as the stated and/or known traditional purposes of various publications. One does not go to The Economist Cover Illustration to find this week's penetrating documentary news photograph. One goes to the The Economist Cover Illustration to see what the Economist editors think about this week's news. That's the way the The Economist has worked since 1843. For any number of reasons you may choose not to submit documentary photographic work to The Economist or various other publications. But please do expect or demand that they stop doing what they've done so well for so long. Research their back issue covers, over the years - beautiful, powerful editorial illustration - expressing opinions which you or I may or may not agree with. There's a place in our world for this professional, creative work too. Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Jul 8, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Philip F wrote: > The issue is not one of cropping but one of omitting an element > that was in the frame. Since she is the parish leader, SHE is the > more important figure considering that it's her beach, not Obama's. > > Had I made that change either when I was working in the Navy or > currently as a student, I would have gotten in trouble. In the Navy > I'd have gone to an Article 15, in school, I'd have gotten kicked > out of my program.