Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/08/07

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

Subject: [Leica] Another Altered Photo
From: jsluss at hughes.net (John Sluss)
Date: Mon Aug 7 09:42:31 2006
References: <BAY103-F40245114A1D947471575108B570@phx.gbl> <44D7587C.5040607@waltjohnson.com><005c01c6ba3b$b878a930$0200a8c0@johno7nl6vzhya> <44D76B64.5060503@waltjohnson.com>

I agree with you about the news media outlets. But who took the photo and 
submitted it. I agree it has been done for years, but does that make it an 
acceptable practice?

John


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Walt Johnson" <walt@waltjohnson.com>
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Another Altered Photo


> I'd be much more concerned with the integrity and honesty of those who own 
> the news media outlets. Besides, there is nothing done today which wasn't 
> done in all those yesterdays. Something else as well, when is the last 
> time you heard of a publisher or CEO getting shot in a war zone? :-P
>
> Walt
>
> John Sluss wrote:
>
>> Any comment on the integrity and honesty of the photographer?  Maybe all 
>> news photographers should go back to film and transmit the negatives to 
>> the newspaper? Is it time to look at all photographs coming out of a war 
>> zone as questionable, to be looked at with a jaundiced eye?
>>
>> Just a couple of thoughts.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walt Johnson" <walt@waltjohnson.com>
>> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
>> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 11:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Another Altered Photo
>>
>>
>>> I'm sure those in the unaltered photo were much happier being bombed in 
>>> low contrast. As I mentioned before, look at Christopher Anderson's work 
>>> http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/ on the Magnum site. Anderson, a Canadian, 
>>> should be relatively objective. His work seems to be straightforward and 
>>> for him, a very risky business. Wonder what rationale Limbaugh would use 
>>> prove Anderson's images fake? Perhaps he could call on Westmoreland's PR 
>>> expert who stated Nick Ut faked it with his napalm shot. I've heard 
>>> tales David Turnley missed the shot loading an M3 but that Ut was also 
>>> using a Leica?
>>>
>>> Walt
>>>
>>> Gregory Rubenstein wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Reuters has canned a photographer in Beirut for altering a photo, 
>>>> according to an article at the following link from MSNBC.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13165165/
>>>>
>>>> This includes the photo, altered and unaltered, as well as Reuter's 
>>>> story.
>>>>
>>>> Greg Rubenstein
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 



Replies: Reply from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] Another Altered Photo)
In reply to: Message from gcr910 at msn.com (Gregory Rubenstein) ([Leica] Another Altered Photo)
Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] Another Altered Photo)
Message from jsluss at hughes.net (John Sluss) ([Leica] Another Altered Photo)
Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] Another Altered Photo)