As they (Post) should be criticized. The real story lay with those who did nothing, drunk victim or not.
Bet that pic edition did not sell as that dim editor might have hoped, either.
max metz: Morally repugnant. Should be criminal.
Only those who were nearer and did nothing.
Post did what they do and were damn lucky photog was present. BTW, you listen to him tell his tale and I believe you would understand he did what he could and that closer citizens are the real criminals.
kenyee: The photographer should be pushed in front of a train along w/ the guy who did the pushing. Add the NY Post's editor to that list and we'll make the world a better place.
He took 45 photos...internal flash would have been at full power w/ those dim conditions...it should have been more like 90 seconds instead of the 22 he claims. He just made a lot of excuses publically so the non-thinking public would think he didn't have time to do anything and the photos were just a mistake where he could crop stuff out...
- 1. Just so wrong. The photog's pics were dark as night, all noised-up and had to be reworked.
TC Couch +1.
The people who were near the man and did nothing, were the bad actors, as this photog ran snapping his flash to warn the motorman.
It is too bad his pics did not pic up some of the people who now must live with themselves.
We have seen and listened to him tell his side, he is one stand-up person; a gentleman who does not deserve the bad press his erstwhile employer brought down on him.
Even if otherwise, the man was too drunk to think to lie down in the center, etc.
The pics are/were so dark, BTW, that the Post, who owns them for 24 hours exclusively, had to work to get the images...
I hope the cops work to get the faces of those who did nothing.
eyedo. Likely you.
First. The press shot quality are a function of the shooter, not the equipment and most certainly depend on viewer inclinations. If you had no idea of the equipment being used, would you know?
Second. I must admit little interest in this event for its self-serving venue and outrageous cost.
No eye level viewfinder -1. No matter what.
In a word, NICE. In a phrase, thoughtful improvement, but the new viewfinder should have been made to fit previous models...
Will it accept the VF-2 finder?