> Did you look at the pictures that were taken and the manipulated final > image? There was much more going on there than just improving "composition." > The result actually was photographically very well done. But there was a > distinct change in meaning of the photographs. The two original images > showed a pretty innocent event taking place. The final image was one of a > hard-nosed "war" photo depicting the toughness of our troops in dominating > the nationals from the other side. That was not an innocent change. Rand: you have it exactly. The two original images are mundane. In the manipulated one the soldier's hand is (metaphorically) putting down the now juxtaposed (cowering?) pleading Iraqi prisoner. The composite, enhanced by the crop, tells a very different story > And Bob and Jim, while I respect your fervor, I fail to see the logic of > equating a lack of support for our war ... It's mob mentality: I frankly cannot respect thier fervor for killing many thousands of innocent Iraqis guilty of no more than trying to defend thier country against what they see as the forces of Satan. While the first Gulf war was justified: this one is little more than a PR exercise ... Q Ashamed to be British right now ...
