The article describes the change made to the photo as the removal of "the legs of someone standing in the background". This would not appear to affect the journalistic content of the image. I assume that burning and dodging of photos have been used for decades to give more weight to details that would otherwise not appear important in the final print. The Wall Street Journal until recently used line drawings almost exclusivly for its images. The line art would be far more suseptable to substantial manipulation than a photo. On the other hand, it would be more clear to the reader that the line art carries the weight of the artist's biases. Are there guidelines to help a photographer know what manipulations of a photograph are acceptable? Tim Corio On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 09:50 -0400, Bob wrote: > This was in this morning's (16 April 2007) issue of The Cleveland Plain > Dealer, one of the area's daily newspapers. I found it interesting. > > http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/117672094448040.xml&coll=2 > > Bob >
