When trusting a "trusted contributor" gets you steamed

[murphyc]

A locomotive buff in Utah decided it would be cool to get a picture of a modern train passing over a steam engine. He submitted the photo and it ran. One slight problem: he neglected to tell how he got his photo.

http://jimromenesko.com/2011/12/19/editor-says-iconic-train-photo-was-photoshopped/

 

[Ace]

How in the hell is that an iconic photo?

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

This crappy picture is what they want to be known for?

 

[Stitch]

How in the hell is that an iconic photo?

My former ME would think it was, which shows a segment of editors don't know what the hell a good photo is.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Maybe they are being ironic in using iconic.

 

[playthrough]

An old visuals editor friend of mine went apesh*t on Facebook over this. Welcome to citizen journalism!

 

[Ace]

How in the hell is that an iconic photo?

My former ME would think it was, which shows a segment of editors don't know what the hell a good photo is.

It might have been iconic 100 years ago when steam engines were being replaced by diesel engines.

 

[bigpern23]

How in the hell is that an iconic photo?

My former ME would think it was, which shows a segment of editors don't know what the hell a good photo is.

It might have been iconic 100 years ago when steam engines were being replaced by diesel engines.

Even then it's just not that great of a shot, much less iconic.

 

[murphyc]

I'm not getting the iconic, either.
I'm also not getting how no one looking at the page on the desk that night thought to call the staff photog and ask why he didn't submit a similar shot. Might have saved some problems right there.