Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]So is this just an issue of making money in that case? Larry Downing is one of the Reuters photogs assigned to cover the White House. He travels with the President. Making excuses for the photographer or for President Obama regarding the woman in the photo is just BS. Obama's shadow is practically falling on her. He knew she was there. She was one of the reasons he was there. The lens may not be that long since those oil rigs are huge. It happens and it's unfortunate that it happens because it is unethical. But we gotta sell something right? Our images, our ethics. Whatever, it's all in the name of making money. Maybe I'm in the wrong for wanting an image to remain unaltered as a part of the historical record. But I'm unwilling to sell away what I know is the difference between right and wrong, however slight. Phil Forrest On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:18:35 -0400 Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > > I just don't know how it's not obvious how the image has changed. > > I'm dumbfounded. And very disappointed. > > > > Phil Forrest > > > Well I had to look twice to see it and I have a pretty good eye I've > been told. > I first thought it was just cropping they were all complaining about. > Then say after a good 20 seconds of going back and forth I saw they > took a figure out so it was just water in the background. > Its simply not an issue. Its just graphics. > > I do think this happens way more often on cover shots than on shots > inside a magazine. I take the taking out of distracting elements on > covers of magazines a given. Its a reality. > And its not "happened " to me but I hope it does. > > [Rabs] > Mark William Rabiner > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information