[clug] Re: A most interesting read, most interesting

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 10:56:40PM +1100, Michael Cohen wrote:
> If the news publishers decide to publish low quality amateur photos over
> professional photos because they are cheap (as he is claiming) that reflects on
> the quality of the publisher itself and in turn the audience who buy the
> papers. It may be that professional photographers can no longer sustain a full
> time income in future - if thats the way technology is going its just progress
> ...

I think it does reflect the nature of the beast. Something like
National Geographic won't print pictures from a mobile phone, unless
there is no alternative. There are thousands of glossy magazines which
want high quality photos. I think it's just that newspapers don't have
any standards anymore.

Have a nice day,
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog at svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/linux/attachments/20061230/1c9c3c80/attachment.bin