Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Absolutely easy to identify material as 'illustration'. I've not seen the issue in the flesh, nor read every discussion, to know whether this was done or not. As a former subscriber and occasional current reader (at the library or pass along copies from friends) I EXPECT The Economist cover to be either a photo or other media ILLUSTRATION; as that is their very long tradition. Do we really need to be told what we're looking at in these? <http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=71579&id=6013004059&ref=share> Seems pretty clear we're looking at concepts, editorial comments in visual form, illustrations. Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Jul 9, 2010, at 8:46 AM, Tim Gray wrote: > On Jul 08, 2010 at 02:30 PM -0500, George Lottermoser wrote: >> But please do expect or demand that they stop doing what they've done >> so well for so long. Research their back issue covers, over the >> years - >> beautiful, powerful editorial illustration - expressing opinions >> which >> you or I may or may not agree with. >> >> There's a place in our world for this professional, creative work >> too. > > Wouldn't it have been easy for them to say in a caption inside that > the cover image was edited, an 'illustration'? I see no problem > with editing, cropping, erasing elements, etc., as long as it is > made clear that these actions occurred. Especially in a photo that > can so easily be misinterpreted as an uncropped, unedited picture, > i.e. the 'truth'. > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information