Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> A photographic lie in the The Economist: > > http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/on-the-economists-cover-only- > a-part-of-the-picture/?src=twt&twt=mediadecodernyt > > <http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/on-the-economists-cover-only > -a-part-of-the-picture/?src=twt&twt=mediadecodernyt>The > editor's explanation is pretty lame. > > Tina In the days of LIFE magazine she would have been air brushed out with analog air brush juice; not cloned out and no one could thought to have cared. Now its demon digital and Photoshop and we are looking a intense untruths being foisted upon us. People just eat that stuff right up. I've not read the whole thing but the graphic impact of Obama with oil rig and water is very clean to me for a magazine cover. Not having the gal on the right distorts the meaning? Of course not. [Rabs] Mark William Rabiner