Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Personally I don't see any photo sins in this case. I see the cropped, worked, black and white as a stronger photograph than the un-cropped color original. No "lie" of any significance has been told. This is so totally different than adding missiles to a launch photo; or removing someone from a historically important socio/political document. I don't see it as a step down a slippery slope; but rather use some common sense and knowledge of photographic history. Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Mar 5, 2010, at 2:09 PM, John Edwin Mason wrote: >> This stuff is getting crazy > >> <http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/behind-35/> > > What's crazy is the way that the raw file was altered to radically > alter the feel and meaning of the scene. The missing sneaker is > the least of the photo's sins: > > http://www.pdnpulse.com/2010/03/yet-another-photo-doctoring- > scandal.html > > http://bit.ly/bYEjtq > > --John > > ****************************** > John Edwin Mason, Photography: > http://www.JohnEdwinMason.com > Charlottesville and Cape Town > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information