[Leica] Photoshopping for Truth?

[photo.forrest at earthlink.net (Philip Forrest)]

It absolutely distorts the meaning of the photo. Undeniably. In the
original, the President is seen in thought and in discussion with two
other people.
In the altered photo featured on the cover, the President is seen in a
one lone man against the spill. It is also construed that the image is
a comment on his failure with the handling of the oil spill.
Just because it was done in Life, doesn't mean it was right either back
then and those editors knew it. But they had to sell issues. In the
case of the Economist, they are a British publication and the
alteration of the original image politicized and dramatized the
original.
Absolutely unacceptable "darkroom" or not.

Phil Forrest


> 
> In the days of LIFE magazine she would have been air brushed out with
> analog air brush juice; not cloned out and no one could thought to
> have cared. Now its demon  digital and Photoshop and we are looking a
> intense untruths being foisted upon us. People just eat that stuff
> right up.  I've not read the whole thing but the graphic impact of
> Obama with oil rig and water is very clean to me for a magazine
> cover. Not having the gal on the right distorts the meaning? Of
> course not.
> 
> [Rabs]
> Mark William Rabiner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information