Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/31

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Photo scandal at National Geographic!!!
From: "bdcolen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:54:57 -0400

I'm not suggesting that they should - although "wrong" is certainly a
relative, nay, meaningless term when applied to the art and/or
journalism of different eras. What was "wrong" in the 50s in terms of
photojournalism may be considered essential today, and vice versa. But I
am not suggesting that because photos were setup, 'adjusted,' what have
you then they should be now. Only pointing out that while digital
technology certainly makes 'adjustments' easier, the idea of screwing
around with photos is hardly a new one - or one that we can blame on
digital.

Now, back to the 100 negs I have to scan for two clients...;-)


- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of
Afterswift@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 11:12 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Photo scandal at National Geographic!!!



In a message dated 8/31/03 6:56:29 AM, bdcolen@earthlink.net writes:

<< True, but think of how many Weegee photos were set up - where little
things were changed to add to the drama and impact of the scene. Which,
of course, could bring us back to things like Eugene Smith sandwiching
negatives...but I digress...:-) >>

If that's the case, then they were wrong. They should establish no
precedent 
for us in their field. 

br
- --
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