Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
I mentioned the Smith photo Sal, not to excuse the LA Times shooter, but
to point out that similar things were done in the darkroom in the
pre-digital age.
I did say that standards have gotten stiffer since Smith's day, and I
believe that is correct. While Smith's editors may not know he
sandwiched those negatives, there were certainly many set-up shots in
Life picture stories in the old days that would never pass the "smell
test" today.
And of course you're right about print journalists being fired for
similar conduct, but, really Sal, "pencil pushers?" ;-)
B. D.
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Sal
DiMarco,Jr.
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 9:59 AM
To: LUG >for posts
Subject: [Leica] Re: LA Times Photog and image manipulation
Luggers,
After reading three days worth of digests, I have caught up on all
this discussion.
The fired photographer had over 20 years experience. The fact, the
LA Times chose to send him to Iraq, tells me, he must have something on
the ball.
However, he deliberately lied with this photograph. If a word
journalist, deliberately lies, he/she/it is automatically fired. I fail
to see how anyone can claim a double standard. I hold myself as a
photojournalist and others photojournalists to the same standards of
integrity as any pencil pusher.
Cropping, burning and dodging, etc. whether in the darkroom or on a
computer screen, are part of the language of photography. Properly used
they help convey the reality of the situtation. Improperly used, they
lie.
Comments were made about Gene Smith's Albert Schweitzer photo with
the hand and saw added.
According to Jim Hughes, a friend of Gene Smith and his biographer.
Smith never told the LIFE editors the photo was from two negatives. He
claimed the negative was flaired and he had a difficult time printing
it. In John Leongard book "Celebrating the Negative," the original
negative is shown and it is an easy printer.
If the LIFE editors had found out about the double printing, the
photo would NEVER have been used, and since he didn't tell anyone about
it, he would have been dismissed on the spot.
FYI- Jim says there are about seven slightly different versions of
the Schweitzer/hand/saw photo. The exact position of the hand and saw
vary slightly. In my collection of Gene Smith books, I found five.
Happy Snaps,
Sal
Sal DiMarco, Jr.
Philadelphia, PA
Web Site: http://members.fcc.net/sal.dimarcojr
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html