Comments on: His next assignment will be a portrait of Dan Rather

By: christopherfountain

christopherfountain — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:36:29 +0000

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.

By: christopherfountain

christopherfountain — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:29:35 +0000

You can’t blame a guy for trying to get the best price for his buyer!

By: Lorin

Lorin — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:10:22 +0000

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?

By: pulled up in OG

pulled up in OG — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:56:45 +0000

Coast’s clear now, Chris. You can put the leaves back in the compost heap.

By: Paco

Paco — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:41:53 +0000

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.