I see the replies, but have not received the original post.
I have mixed feelings about the image.
Firstly, I don't think it's a very good image whether it's deceptive or
not.
But, secondarily it does seem to be (if only just barely on purely
technical grounds) within the canon of Photojournalism Ethics. As I
understand them, forced perspective is one of the allowable tools, even
when applied deceptively.
At what point can you draw the line and say any more than this is too much?
If I were looking for a home to buy, I'd be really pissed off when I got
to the location and saw the reality vs the presentation. I wouldn't be
interested in seeing anything else the agency had on offer, but it
doesn't appear to me to rise to the level of criminality.
I expect the adverse publicity the agency will receive from exposure is
far worse than any punishment the government can impose.
On 2/18/2016 9:48 AM, Bulent Celasun wrote:
Interesting.
I believe it is unethical. No idea whether it should be considered
legal or not.
Bulent
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://patoloji.gen.tr
http://celasun.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bc_the_path/
http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2226822
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/bulentcelasun
2016-02-18 16:28 GMT+02:00 Mark Roberts <[email protected]>:
Check it out:
http://petapixel.com/2016/02/16/real-estate-photo-illegal-false-advertising/
I'm pretty sure that there's no Photoshop involved here: The
photographer just got very close with a wide angle lens and then
positioned the camera fairly low to the ground. (You can see from
other photos that the p[hotographer would have to have been *very*
close to the house to be on the lawn.)
--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.
--
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.
