Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/08/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 10:30 AM 8/11/2006, you wrote: >Nathan > >Honestly, I think your concept of this situation is seriously >flawed. It is the most perfect example o a "penny wise, pound >foolish" mentality I can imagine. I'm not trying to be harsh but >please try viewing these events with an open mind. What most have >missed with the Reuters images should have been easily presented >when the story broke. I posted images which showed the scene >without manipulation, but with increased contrast. The destruction >in downtown Beirut seemed quite obvious. http://www.downtownbeirut.com/Genocide/israel-genocide-in-lebanon.htm Walt - The photos on the site you sent are very disturbing. I was in Lebanon a year ago and it's hard to believe how much things have changed. I photographed the Cedar Rebellion in downtown Beirut and talked to the people camped out there who were demanding the truth about Hariri's assassination and the right to govern themselves. Everybody was so hopeful. I don't think either party is blameless in this recent conflict. Hezbollah has the announced goal of completely eliminating Israel. How can you negotiate with that? As Golda Meir said, "We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us." But Israel should also know that they will be condemned by the world for killing innocent civilians, even if the targets are Hezbollah sites. To bring this back to photography, the photos by the Reuters photographer were blatantly and clumsily altered. The photographer admitted he did it. He should have known better. They were right to get rid of his photos. It's disturbing that such obviously altered photos were ever published. Photojournalists should have to record any processing of their photographs in the metadata history which would be available to editors. Tina Tina Manley, ASMP, NPPA http://www.tinamanley.com