leslie_cheung

Fwiw, the title of this very thread and Steve's original link both have "scandal" in it. My bad if they are just clickbait. I really thought it is a huge scandal. My apoligies, as I said, I don't follow photo forums/news these days...

PR or damage control doesn't preclude ones innocent or guilt. It's just being cautious, like shooting a third or fourth extra frame. And Fred, if you take all things at face value, you would not make much of an objective journalist, if you believe in such...

yes, he 's in damage control is my assessment, opinion. There may or may not be much damage, I don't know as I don't follow fine art or photography anymore, or have inside info. In the realm of philosophy, people explore possibilities, converse and debate. In the realm of athletes , celebrities, politicians and artists scandals, PR comes first...

To be more clear on my view...either way, whether he knew and approved or knew and disapproved, he's in damage control with regards to the section of fans that disapprove of creative editing, does that make more sense? His fans that do not disapprove don't matter and wouldn't stop liking mccurry...

Fred, there is no way to know for sure. However, I'm don't care much either one way or another. What I meant was he knew about the editing, and he was playing the PR card, especially for his section of fans that disapprove of creative editings. I'm not sure how many fans he turned out. It's not a big deal, whether he actually lied or not, to me. Maybe there is an agreed protocol between McCurry and his printer that was botched?

A PR damage control, I too seriously doubt McCurry knew nothing about the creative editing, as implied per. If I were a printer, Id have serious nerve to "creative edit" world famous magnum/natural geo mcCurry w/o his knowledge. As for the aesthetic discussion, the 3 linkedphotos do not deserve the time. They imo aren't worth photobotching, period.

The three pics aren't that good with, or without the photo botching imo. Personally, I don't mind the first botch, but I do find the other two objectable, especially the last one. Finally, I never really been a McCurry fan, most his doc. work just doesn't do much for me, except maybe for some of his straight on portraitures.

What, no iphonexyz? Who cares what's trending, or even most sold really? Just shoot with whatever you like or can afford...what an idea�

Decide if you want to focus on photography, or playing with the tools. Either can be fun and they don't have to be mutually exclusive per se, but you will eventually have to prioritize...If you want to focus on photography, use two or three lenses and use them well before accumulating more. Learn the basics...lighting, composition, processing etc...and not, say, lens F fix well with adapter z etc...

<p>Visually speaking, of course</p> <p>Bernie: grumpy<br> Clinton: vile<br> Christie: x-large<br> Fiorina: ghastly<br> Trump: look at my hair!<br> Rubio: nice looking 'bot<br> Cruz: Cuban Canadian, really?<br> Carson: quiet <br> Kasich: bland<br> Perhaps, a *bigger* camera will make them look different? Nah...</p>

<p>Does one manually set the film ISO in the 1V? </p> <p>How do you know they were all under by 3 stops exactly, why not 2.5, or say, 4? <br> Now, if the film had been expired five years, but you don't exactly remember how long it's been in the fridge at 2-4 degree C...Could it been in a humid, hot place for, say, 3 years, then stored in the fridge for the last two?</p> <p>A light meter malfunction?</p> <p>I doubt it is a purely film age problem, especially if it was kept at 2-4 C the whole (5 years) time.</p> <p>More details would help...<br> </p>