William Robb wrote:
> There is no news worthiness in these photos. It seems to me the
> guy is just trying to cash in on a tragedy. My take on this
> would be quite different if he had been trying to sell them to
> the media the day after the crash. I realize that often, non
> media people come up with newsworthy photos just by
> happenstance. The Zapruder film is an example of that.
> What botheres me is not the pictures, or the creating of them,
> it is the obvious attempt at exploitation that offends me.
OK, I can understand your point, although I'm not sure I'm in 100%
accord with your position. Are you saying that the exploitation -
i.e., the selling of the photos and negs - is sick because there's
no (current) news value?
Let's look at another scenario. In the early 1950s a young
photographer who was just starting out had a few wonderful photo
sessions with Marilyn Monroe. Today, after MM's fame and history
have become well known, the photographer's estate is offering the
contact sheet for a series of photographs to the public at a price
of about $2500.00.
What is the difference between these examples, and do you find the
one of MM exploitive as well?
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are no rules for good photographs,
there are only good photographs.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
