Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Mar 5, 2010, at 1:37 PM, George Lottermoser wrote: > I don't think there's any corruption going on > either by the photographer or the competition. > > They're simply taking a "rule" to its ridiculous extreme; > without using common sense or knowledge of the the history of the craft; > not to mention the art. I used the word corruption to indicate that, perhaps it is a too strong word, or not. If they don't know the reasonable, ethical use of the current tools of the craft perhaps they are not equipped to run a competition. > The rule intends to eliminate intentional, significant visual lies and > fraud. > In its wake we lose the reasonable, ethical use of the current tools of > our craft. > > To pose the question in this case seems reasonable. > "Does this photograph step over the line of journalistic or documentary > ethics?" > The decision of "yes" seems to me unreasonable. > > At a simpler, superficial level: > "does this photograph break our silly rule?" > okay "yes." > case closed. > > Sad - because the "finished" photograph worked - full of feeling, strong > and relevant. > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george at imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > On Mar 5, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Steve Barbour wrote: > >> it may be that the corruption lies in the competition, not the photograph. > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information