--- Rich Mason wrote: > ... and no picture should be > trusted? Not exactly. what I am saying is that no picture IS to be trusted! One of the topics of this very complex matter, is precisely the way we look at pictures, enshrined as the final evidence or representation of a reality that is conditioned by editorial decisions. For one example: if a picture is worth a 1000 words, then why the caption? Because quite frequently, those 1000 words fall short of the 10 or 20 that the editor needs to tell *his* version of the story. > I think the possibility of getting fired ... IMHO, as of the NYT case, the editors, not the photographer, should be fired. > ... when I was a staff photographer and lab > tech--except in rare > circumstances, such as ... The arguments of "except in rare circumstances" or "only color/contrast correction" are my point about the weakness of this "no manipulation allowed" policies. The line has proven impossible to be drawn somewhere. Even if I am not a PJ, I try to understand the other POV, but I think it is flawed by nature, that's all. All the Best, ********************** www.alberto-tirado.com johnploy.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
