I agree. I have no reservations about doing everything I can to make a
fine art or "entertainment" photo as nice as possible. But news
photography has a responsibility to be accurate. The Times seem to have
a very large photo department. And for the most part, they deal with a
group of pre-approved contributors, who understand the seriousness of
the situation and want to protect their position. When the Times photo
editors buy something from outside their circle, they can devote more
time and effort to scrutiny.
Paul
On Jan 11, 2006, at 7:45 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
IMO, that's the way it should be. Considering the number of photos
they
receive, assuming they receive a lot, is there enough time to look
carefully at each pic?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Date: 1/11/2006 3:35:56 AM
Subject: Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
Interesting. The New York Times won't permit any PhotoShop alterations
whatsoever. Even background clutter must remain in the photo. Before I
could sell photos to the Times I had to sign documents pledging that I
would provide only unaltered photos. The photo editors carefully
examine all submissions for any signs of alteration. I'm sure one
could
slip a minor cleanup by them, but anything of consequence would
probably be detected.
Paul
On Jan 11, 2006, at 12:40 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47066
Journalism at its best ...
Shel
