From   Tue, 08 Apr 2003 17:30:39 -0700 remote
from fanciful.org
Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.6.450.61)
          for photo{at}fanciful.org; Tue, 08 Apr 2003 17:30:39 -0700
Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181]) HELO=saf.tzo.com
          by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP v5.6.450.61) with SMTP
          id 666006140; Tue, 08 Apr 2003 17:30:36 -0700
Received: from 205.201.1.216 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003040820320945333 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Wed, 09 Apr 2003 00:32:09 GMT
Received: (qmail 66722 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2003 00:28:46 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO STUARTTURK) (205.201.41.15)
  by speedbuggy.telerama.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2003 00:28:46 -0000
Message-ID: 
Reply-To: "Stu Turk" 
From: "Stu Turk" 
To: 
References: 

Subject: Re: news article
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 19:37:08 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106


----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry N. Bolch" 

    [....]
> I think in this case the altering of the image was stupid - knowing the
> paper's policy - but the firing was also draconian. The punishment did not
> fit the crime. Two shots in succession of a single incident were combined.
>
> No meaning was changed, the story the combined image told was no different
> than either of the source images - only the composition was improved. No
one
> was demeaned or defamed, no new meaning was created. No viewers would have
     [....]

    I didn't see the image myself, Larry.  But from some comments I read in
the 35mm newsgroup (posted by someone who had seen the photo) it appears
that when the photographer combined the images he duplicated images of the
same people (that is, the same people showed up in two different places in
the final print.)  The editors didn't notice the duplacates until after the
image went to press.  Wonder if the editors weren't miffed at themselves for
not seeing that the image was a composite, and  a poor job of photoshoping
at that, as they were about the policy violation.  :-)
    I agree that it appears to be over reaction though and with your other
comments.


--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5