- Original Message -
From: "Boris Liberman"
Subject: Re: WPP image disqualified
I am afraid you misunderstood me.
I know, it was fun. :-)
Indeed, this image shouldn't have gotten as far and high as it got. But
the way it happened smells of fish, especially
From: "Boris Liberman"
Subject: Re: WPP image disqualified
You're right in general, Bill. It is just that it is pretty obvious to
me that once they start noticing image modifications of this
magnitude, they inevitably will also look the other way at certain
times. This, to me i
- Original Message -
From: "Boris Liberman"
Subject: Re: WPP image disqualified
You're right in general, Bill. It is just that it is pretty obvious to me
that once they start noticing image modifications of this magnitude, they
inevitably will also look the other
On 3/16/2010 4:41 PM, William Robb wrote:
The problem with this sort of thing is where do they draw the line in the
sand?
Do they draw it at cloning out an errant foot because it "is not a subject
of the image submitted to the contest"?
What if they allow this, and next year, someone clones out s
From: Keith Whaley
Boris Liberman wrote:
> On 3/7/2010 11:18 PM, Derby Chang wrote:
>>
>> Seems to me the crop and the B+W conversion do more to alter the content
>> of the image than the foot clone. Still, I guess there is a "slippery
>> slope" argument, and thems the rules.
>>
>> http://www.r
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Whaley"
Subject: Re: WPP image disqualified
To me it seems like a great example of a difference between spirit of the
rules and letter of the rules...
Boris
It certainly is. Quite plainly put, the jury's decision was a monument
Boris Liberman wrote:
On 3/7/2010 11:18 PM, Derby Chang wrote:
Seems to me the crop and the B+W conversion do more to alter the content
of the image than the foot clone. Still, I guess there is a "slippery
slope" argument, and thems the rules.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?
On 3/7/2010 11:18 PM, Derby Chang wrote:
Seems to me the crop and the B+W conversion do more to alter the content
of the image than the foot clone. Still, I guess there is a "slippery
slope" argument, and thems the rules.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10049-10543
T
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Bob W wrote:
>
> He could probably have burnt it in to the point where it no longer
> interfered with the composition, but remained within acceptable limits - ie,
> was definitely there and not removed, but relatively unobtrusive.
Agreed.
Ashamed, really, because
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 4:47 PM, DagT wrote:
> I agree with you regarding the changes. To me this shows that the jury is
> more interested in the rules than the reason for the rules.
It's a photojournalism contest. I think it's clear that his
alteration (small as it might have been) is beyond wh
2010/3/8 David J Brooks :
>
> Those of us in the flat earth society, do not have that problem.:-)
When you tilt a plane, all the water's going to run off on one side.
--
http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/
http://alunfoto.blogspot.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net
>
> It's a photojournalism contest. I think it's clear that his
> alteration (small as it might have been) is beyond what would
> be considered acceptable for a press photograph.
>
> As submitted to the contest, it's a wonderful photo. I have
> no doubt that the photographer wasn't trying to
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:13 AM, David Mann wrote:
> I'm also interested that he's as bad as I am at keeping the horizon straight.
Those of us in the flat earth society, do not have that problem.:-)
Dave
>
> Dave
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/list
On Mar 8, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Derby Chang wrote:
> Seems to me the crop and the B+W conversion do more to alter the content of
> the image than the foot clone. Still, I guess there is a "slippery slope"
> argument, and thems the rules.
>
> http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-
From: Derby Chang
Seems to me the crop and the B+W conversion do more to alter the content
of the image than the foot clone. Still, I guess there is a "slippery
slope" argument, and thems the rules.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10049-10543
If that foot is supposed
I agree with you regarding the changes. To me this shows that the jury is more
interested in the rules than the reason for the rules.
DagT
Den 7. mars 2010 kl. 22.18 skrev Derby Chang:
>
> Seems to me the crop and the B+W conversion do more to alter the content of
> the image than the foot cl
Seems to me the crop and the B+W conversion do more to alter the content
of the image than the foot clone. Still, I guess there is a "slippery
slope" argument, and thems the rules.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10049-10543
--
der...@iinet.net.au
http://members.iin
17 matches
Mail list logo
