RE: [Leica] feb shutterbug

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

DOH!!!!!! Who in the name of whatever EVER contended that the person hired
to shoot for Greenpeace wasn't a PHOTOGRAPHER?! What an utterly inane
contention/comment. The question is whether, when hired by an organization
to shoot their apparently illegal action, the PHOTOGRAPHER is a part of the
illegal action, or can in some convoluted way claim the protection of being
a JOURNALIST.

Of course photographers who accept money/equipment from equipment and supply
manufacturers are PHOTOGRAPHERS. What else would they be? Are they objective
judges of the particular manufacturer's equipment/supplies? Of course not.
But who cares. I don't give a fig what a Ralph Gibson, James Nachtwey, etc.
etc. have to say about equipment brands - I want to see what they shoot, or
hear how they work, or what their photo philosophy is.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr!;-)

B. D.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of
Teresa299@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 8:17 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] feb shutterbug



In a message dated 1/3/02 1:32:21 PM, bdcolen@earthlink.net writes:

<< Come on, males and females, these days what BIG name photographer isn't
paid

in some way, by some manufacturer? I'll be the first to admit that I'd sure

jump at the chance for such an arrangement - not that I am even at the

fringe of anyone's radar scope.


But this raises an interesting question:


Who amongst you wouldn't like to have an arrangement with Leica, or Kodak,

etc. etc. And if you wouldn't, why wouldn't you?


B. D.

 >>


When is a photographer not really a photographer?

Now what is Ralph was really paid by Greenpeace and not Leica or Kodak?  Is
he still a photographer?



- -kim
- --
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