My Photo


  • You can comment by clicking the Comments link under any entry.

    All original material © JN Web Design




« Israel's premeditated attack on Lebanon. | Main | Venezuelan cocoa farmers convert to organic »

Saturday, July 29, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Temple Stark

It does pose an interesting dilema. But, though reading other photogs accounts make it seem like nothing, my first reading of what happened was that he added a lot of color to the picture when the picture he took wasn't so good. That seems wrong. This is meant to be news, and we can't be held to the carpet when we stay close to our own ethics. The Observer's policy was clear.

Sounds like Schneider should have gone to talk to an editor, especially in light (pun intended) of the fact that he had been caught before and at the time said he would not be adjusting his backgrounds quite that far again.

It's a shame, but rather than look at what it really changed, I would look more at intent. He changed an image without approval. Again. Why?

- Temple

J Newman

If that's how it happened, Temple, I agree. But if you read the link above which shows some of his original images with the altered ones, they looks pretty innocuous.

At least it provided me - and perhaps others - an opportunity to consider this matter beyond the obvious.

Now, over six years later, I see (from the link above) that he's an active photographer, apparently free to adjust his images according to his own views.

The comments to this entry are closed.