The New York Times Magazine has had to pull the pictorial on abandoned houses from last week’s edition because the photographer, brought all the way over from Europe to strut his stuff, turned out to have digitally-altered the pictures. Too bad for the writer, Chuck Wilson, who poured a ton of time into the project, only to be undone by an unscrupulous Frenchman (redundant, I know).
Advertisement
There has been a plague of “fauxtography” the past few years with the most egregious phony images distributed by s0-called mainstream media – often French-associated but AP as well – originating in Gaza and Lebanon. Sometimes they issue retractions, often they don’t, but in either case the damage is done since the original image has been seen and re-posted all over the world.
Coast’s clear now, Chris. You can put the leaves back in the compost heap.
this makes an interesting argument for having a print version of something…however, I avoid buying the NYT because I think it is actually treasonous. I also read it when I find it lying about somewhere, and saw your quote, what was digitally altered? old coffee cups, paper bags, other junk, removed?
You can’t blame a guy for trying to get the best price for his buyer!
I don’t know what was altered or even which picture(s), just received an apologetic note from the writer warning me that the article had to be pulled. It certainly wasn’t Chuck Wilson’s doing and I know, from viewing S.Baldwin Farms, that any changes had to be incredibly subtle because it looked exactly like what I saw (days before the photographer showed up) except the photo made it look beautiful. So go figure.