Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I disagree, vehemently!! Photoshop out other people who were actually there and alter the meaning of the photo???!!!! That smacks of Natzi Germany and Gulag Russia, not the USA with its freedom of press and the right of the people to know the truth. This altered photo is not the truth. I agree it is much more pleasing as a composition which might be acceptable as an "art" photo, but as photojournalism it is totally unacceptable and if photographers can't even agree to that, we are in trouble. Tina On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > > A photographic lie in the The Economist: > > > > > http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/on-the-economists-cover-only- > > a-part-of-the-picture/?src=twt&twt=mediadecodernyt > > > > < > http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/on-the-economists-cover-only > > -a-part-of-the-picture/?src=twt&twt=mediadecodernyt>The > > editor's explanation is pretty lame. > > > > Tina > > > 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 > > -- Tina Manley, ASMP www.tinamanley.com