Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> I disagree, vehemently!! Photoshop out other people who were actually > there > and alter the meaning of the photo???!!!! That smacks of Natzi Germany and > Gulag Russia, not the USA with its freedom of press and the right of the > people to know the truth. This altered photo is not the truth. I agree it > is much more pleasing as a composition which might be acceptable as an > "art" > photo, but as photojournalism it is totally unacceptable and if > photographers can't even agree to that, we are in trouble. > > Tina Well there are degrees of altering photos and in the darkroom photographers did it with every photo they have turned in for decades. And In the case of the magazines like LIFE those images would be drastically altered at that point. Everything smoothed out and simplified. Nobody said a cross world about it but now that its Photoshop instead of an airbrush in sombody hand its a huge moral issue. Did that lady not being there distort the story? It was the opinion apparently of the people in the magazine that the image was more concise without her. I agree. [Rabs] Mark William Rabiner