On 1/24/2014 4:26 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Bob W wrote:
As I said earlier, it's mainly a matter of whether or not the photographer can
be
trusted as a reliable witness.
In the case of this particular photograph I would argue that the thing he
removed
was not a minor element, and it's not for him to make that call anyway.
I agree on both points. Furthermore, a work of photojournalism is an
item of record. There is no way of knowing if the presence or absence
of that video camera might be revealed to be important later on.
Perhaps years from now we'll learn of explosive devices being
disguised as video cameras and whether that camera appeared in that
photo could be very significant. I could hypothesize dozens of other
ways in which that missing camera might be discovered to be important
in the future. They aren't likely but they certainly are possible.
It's not my call to make. It wasn't the photographer's either.
Not years from now; years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud#Assassination
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
