Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tina, I disagree with your comment (below). In the altered, composite photo, the soldier is not pointing his gun at the father and child. It rather shows him pointing his gun sideways, to his right, and more or less along the plane of the photograph, while the father and child are approaching him from his left. This is also the soldier's orientation in of one of the original photos, of course, although in that one, the father and child are a bit farther away and do not seem to be headed toward him. It is the other original photo, not the composite one, that has the soldier pointing his gun at an angle slightly back from the plane of the photograph, and therefore somewhat more in the direction of the more distant father and child. Art Peterson Alexandria, Virginia -----Original Message----- From: Tina Manley [mailto:images@InfoAve.Net] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 8:35 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: RE: [Leica] fired for photoshopping At 03:49 PM 4/2/2003 -0800, you wrote: >BTW, if you actually saw the images ( LA Times today, page A6) you would >notice that the actual changes made did not change the intent or message of >the photo. It improved the image. I totally disagree. It changed the entire intent of the photo. In the original two photos, the soldier is not pointing a weapon at the father carrying the child. In the composite photo he is. The difference in the two photos is astounding to me. Tina Tina Manley, ASMP http://www.tinamanley.com photos available from: http://www.pdiphotos.com http://www.mira.com http://www.agpix.com http://www.newscom.com -- 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