Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/04/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 4/21/07, Harrison McClary <lists@mcclary.net> wrote: > > What it all boils down to is that in this day and age of easy digital > manipulation it has been generally agreed on that removing anything from > a photo is taboo. This is more because of the ease with which it is > done. Just where do you draw the line. <snip> .....but the rules say do not change the photo in photo shop by removing > things or adding things. Period. > > -------------------------------------------- I was never a newspaper photographer; I did string for UPI. (One of two things I have in common with Harrison. We also went to the same high school.) I "transmitted" my images, still unprocessed in a large red onion bag to New Orleans by Trailways bus. Until the sixties, many news photographers didn't see the image after they shot it until it was published. The lab printed the work, usually full frame, the photo editor marked the print, and sent it to the engraving room. Sometimes they would mask details out of the shot. I've seen hundreds of old file prints with all kinds of retouching. I've recounted the story in New Orleans where a guy would always jump into any line-up shots of big-wigs. The Times-Picayune editor would routinely replace him in the shot with a potted palm. Once they needed a shot of a prominent man who had died. No picture could be found, not even at his home. The photog went to the morgue, paid the coroner's aid to put the stiff at a desk. They took a picture, brought it back and the photo editor painted the eyes open. Rules are indeed rules, and the rules must be followed, but PLEEEZE don't pretend that it has always been thus. -- Regards, Sonny http://www.sonc.com Natchitoches, Louisiana USA