Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/02/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> >>I think you are ABSOLUTELY under the most basic of ethical obligations to > inform the editor that you > used a prop, rather than a live snake.<< The "thick, lush, thirsty" towels that look 5 inches thick in ads are stuffed with newspapers to make them look thicker. The before and after photos of the middle aged woman's face in wrinkle reduction ads are taken at the same time, only the lighting has been changed to dupe the unwary. I am sure the editor know. There are literally thousands of deceptive ads. Ethics stops where there is money to be made. If the ad in question was to sell live seagulls as pets, then yes, the gull should have been live, never mind "informing the editor". If, however, the gulls and the snakes were only part of a whole scene and especially if the props represented accurately the actions their live counterparts, then it matters little if they are real, stuffed, or bionic. A nature photographer in my area captures wonderful photos of raptors swooping on prey. I admired these photos with awe for years. One day I asked the photographer how he managed to photograph hawks, eagles and other birds so vividly and only with a 200mm lens. "with a blind and bait nailed to a stump" he replied without batting an eyelash. I was disappointed as I was envisioning long and arduous treks in the wilderness, but I cannot deny that the photographs represented accurately the behavior of his subjects props and tricks notwithstanding. Joseph