Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm not suggesting that they should - although "wrong" is certainly a relative, nay, meaningless term when applied to the art and/or journalism of different eras. What was "wrong" in the 50s in terms of photojournalism may be considered essential today, and vice versa. But I am not suggesting that because photos were setup, 'adjusted,' what have you then they should be now. Only pointing out that while digital technology certainly makes 'adjustments' easier, the idea of screwing around with photos is hardly a new one - or one that we can blame on digital. Now, back to the 100 negs I have to scan for two clients...;-) - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Afterswift@aol.com Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 11:12 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] Photo scandal at National Geographic!!! In a message dated 8/31/03 6:56:29 AM, bdcolen@earthlink.net writes: << True, but think of how many Weegee photos were set up - where little things were changed to add to the drama and impact of the scene. Which, of course, could bring us back to things like Eugene Smith sandwiching negatives...but I digress...:-) >> If that's the case, then they were wrong. They should establish no precedent for us in their field. br - -- 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