Graywolf posted: > What bothers me, Shel is the judgments you expressed about the woman. Without > them it is just a photo of her. With them it is a serious put down. This is the > thing one has to watch for using such photos editorially. If you imply, much > less say something (in this case that she is unhealthy) about the subject that > is not necessarily true then it is probably actionable, and to me objectionable.
I agree with Graywolf, but would add that, as displayed, the problem to me is that the title expressed a judgement too. In your post you said you didn't know whether she has a medical condition contributing to her appearance, and I think that since you don't know, then your title should have been more objective. FWIW, I would not have taken the photograph under the circumstances, but as you don't know me very well, what *I* would or wouldn't do really doesn't say much to you! (grin)
