Giving photogs a bad name?
 

On 2014-05-18 15:15:13 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 23:00:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...lican-primary/


You

seem to think that any reference to the use of a camera is a
photography issue. That's not necessarily true.

The photograph was taken by a blogger with a political agenda. His
action may give political bloggers a bad name, but it has nothing to
do with photographers.

....and it was probably shot with a phone.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Giving photogs a bad name?
 

On 5/18/2014 11:43 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-18 15:15:13 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 23:00:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...lican-primary/



You

seem to think that any reference to the use of a camera is a
photography issue. That's not necessarily true.

The photograph was taken by a blogger with a political agenda. His
action may give political bloggers a bad name, but it has nothing to
do with photographers.

...and it was probably shot with a phone.

I imagine, especially since the advent of Photoshop, that trusting a
photograph is a thing of the past. Recently, I've seen pictures of
eagles carrying off children and zebras chasing lions.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

Giving photogs a bad name?
 

On Sun, 18 May 2014 08:43:41 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2014-05-18 15:15:13 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
:
: On Sat, 17 May 2014 23:00:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA
: wrote:
:
: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...lican-primary/
:
:
: You
:
: seem to think that any reference to the use of a camera is a
: photography issue. That's not necessarily true.
:
: The photograph was taken by a blogger with a political agenda. His
: action may give political bloggers a bad name, but it has nothing to
: do with photographers.
:
: ...and it was probably shot with a phone.

Let's hope so. At this point we have no way of knowing what other shoes are
going to drop.

Bob

Giving photogs a bad name?
 

On 2014-05-18 19:25:30 +0000, Robert Coe said:

On Sun, 18 May 2014 08:43:41 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2014-05-18 15:15:13 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
:
: On Sat, 17 May 2014 23:00:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA
: wrote:
:
:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...lican-primary/
:
:
:

You
:
: seem to think that any reference to the use of a camera is a
: photography issue. That's not necessarily true.
:
: The photograph was taken by a blogger with a political agenda. His
: action may give political bloggers a bad name, but it has nothing to
: do with photographers.
:
: ...and it was probably shot with a phone.

Let's hope so. At this point we have no way of knowing what other shoes are
going to drop.

Bob

Given that all the characters in this mini-drama are positioned so far
to the right on the Southern political bench, they are barely hanging
on to it. If they all drop off things could only improve.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Giving photogs a bad name?
 

James Silverton wrote:
I imagine, especially since the advent of Photoshop, that trusting a
photograph is a thing of the past. Recently, I've seen pictures of
eagles carrying off children and zebras chasing lions.



In this regard, I vividly recall seeing a photograph in a magazine,
especially made to illustrate the topic at hand. It showed
then-President Bush Sr., with a naked girl sitting on his lap, and
President Abraham Lincoln standing next to him with a hand on Pres.
Bush's shoulder. Although obviously impossible to be real, there were no
cut edges or color or texture changes to suggest cut-and-paste. It
illustrates how phoney pix can be made to seem realistic, and hints at
how they can be used maliciously. The old canard that pictures don't lie
is now itself a lie.

Let the viewer beware.

Mort Linder