[  3  /  a  /  adv  /  an  /  c  /  cgl  /  ck  /  cm  /  co  /  diy  /  fa  /  fit  /  g  /  i  /  ic  /  jp  /  k  /  lit  /  m  /  mlp  /  mu  /  n  /  o  /  p  /  po  /  q  /  sci  /  sp  /  tg  /  toy  /  trv  /  tv  /  v  /  vg  /  vp  /  w  /  wg  /  wsg  /  x  ]

/p/ Photography

Warning: All the content of this page originally come from 4chan.org. This is only a partial archive made to avoid destruction. Some posts and images may be missing. All the messages below have been posted by anonymous users and we do not guarantee any truth of what they said.
For any illegal content, please contact me so that I can immediatly destroy it!

Anonymous 2014-01-26 07:06:12 No.2231623

[Missing image file: Narcisco_Contreras.jpg]

Did AP overreact by firing this guy for editing out the camera from his photo?

http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2014/AP-severs-ties-with-photographer-who-altered-work


>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 07:07:51 No.2231625
>>2231623
it looks way worse with the camera photoshopped out

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 07:30:06 No.2231633
>>2231625

This.

Dumb move shooping it out, I guess most people looking at the original image would assume it was some weapon related stuff anyway.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 07:33:18 No.2231636

[Missing image file: rpgguy.jpg]
>>2231633

Pic related; guy with RPG launcher.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsPhotographerSTRImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:07:13 16:27:18Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width500Image Height344

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 07:35:26 No.2231637
>>2231636
Shoulda bought a fotosniper

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 07:54:07 No.2231642
Why not? It is probably in the agreement the photographer signed anyway. One altered image will put all his work's legitimacy in question. It would be more problem to deal with.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 07:55:36 No.2231643
contrast/sharpen doesn't count as altering?

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 08:13:44 No.2231649
>>2231643
Altering as in add/remove things within the photo. General PP(contrast/sharpen etc) does not change the context of the photo, but adding/removing whole section/object have the potential to do so. See it as falsifying evidence if you will, no publisher would want to touch that.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 08:25:30 No.2231653
>>2231649
con.
You also need to realize AP is one of the largest provider of these photos for others in the news, news paper and magazine business too, they take alterations very seriously.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 09:08:44 No.2231672
Photojournalism is still journalism.
Doctoring a photo is the same as misquoting someone.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 09:12:25 No.2231674
This article sheds a little more light on the situation:

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/truth-and-consequences-for-a-war-photographer/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 10:05:22 No.2231689
>>2231623
>But unlike previous occurrences in which the violation was discovered by readers, bloggers or other photographers, this week’s case had a twist: Mr. Contreras — facing a moral dilemma and knowing the consequences — turned himself in

>After checking all of the nearly 500 photographs he has submitted to The A.P., the news service uncovered no other altered images, according to Santiago Lyon, vice president and director of photography.

He fucked up, made a poor error of judgement. He deserved a severe bollocking and AP would have been right to be wary about hiring him again.

He didn't deserve to be publicly flogged or to have his career destroyed

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 10:46:28 No.2231698
>>2231689
>He didn't deserve to be publicly flogged or to have his career destroyed

How was he "publicly flogged"?
And I'm sure he can still work for tabloids.

If you do something like this at the Olympics you get a very hefty fine. ($100.000 IIRC)
Protecting the integrity of news photos is serious business because nobody will believe the other pictures are real when some are doctored.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 11:23:00 No.2231705
>>2231698
>Protecting the integrity of news photos

Is there integrity to protect? lel

They are protecting the status quo where people believe news journalism is still the objective truth

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 11:30:41 No.2231706
>>2231698
>How was he "publicly flogged"?

AP released it as a news story, it has been in papers and on websites all over the world

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 11:32:49 No.2231707
>>2231706
Not everybody lives in the Anglosphere.

Journalism is fine in most of the Western world.
Try reading some French or German papers.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 11:33:56 No.2231708
>>2231707
Sorry, meant to quote:
>>2231705

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 11:36:12 No.2231710
>>2231706
Of course AP published it.
They were embarrassed and had to publicly set it straight to regain the confidence of their clients and the public.

That's not the same as "flogging" someone.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 12:18:15 No.2231727
>>2231707

I saw it in the South China Morning Post

>>2231710

Nobody would have known if he hadn't got guilt feelings about it. It's not exactly the kind of edit where internet sleuths are going to say "oh that gravel looks a bit odd, I bet there was a TV camera there."

AP could have simply issued a retraction or an amendment to their clients, like they do when they fuck up captions, and it would have been forgotten in 24 hours.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 12:21:18 No.2231730
>>2231705
Not the guy you're talking to.

I agree with your point. On the other hand though, I think there are some expectations, and what most are expecting to see would be some kind of "objective world of the camera" and where the photog, as courageous as s/he is, works to fulfill the camera's aspiration to capture what it "sees." And, despite the use contrast and sharpening adjustments that we tend to think don't interfere that much with the final image, plus the way engineers configured how processors work and any limitation (e.g. dynamic range), it more or less produce images that are perceived as similar to what someone would see with his own eyes.

Don't remember now who said it, but a process along these lines, where the camera, due to its technical nature, captures the truth, gives you room to reaffirm that what you see is true. Besides, the eye pretty much works like a camera, with its lens and retina.

Anyway, the AP photographer had it coming. Sure, if he shared a bit of what I think (reasonable or not), he could do some shit along with it and claim he's "challenging all bases of Western society and its beliefs", whatever, but he had a job to provide images that were consistent with AP's guidelines that, as blurry as it can be regarding limits to adjustments to color, contrast etc, what he presented is clearly subject to sanctions.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-26 12:30:47 No.2231732
>>2231727
He have some 500 photos with AP and shared Pulitzer award with other AP journalists, it make things fairly complicated when you try to pull a whole bunch of product off the shelf without a reason.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-27 17:16:38 No.2232735
top LEL. mfw AP talks about truth and integrity and had a bunch of embedded photographers in Iraqi war.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-27 17:34:29 No.2232741

[Missing image file: real_press_foto.jpg]
>dat authenticity

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2013:10:24 15:53:37Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width540Image Height725

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-27 17:40:26 No.2232742
>>2231653
wasn't it AP not too long ago that had like 60% of their images exposed as shopped in major ways, mainly their war (9/11, afghanistan, etc)?

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-27 17:42:54 No.2232744
>>2232741
I love seeing photographers in struggling 3rd world countries. they will stand back and watch someone die so they can get a good picture to sell

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-27 17:47:39 No.2232747
>>2232741
It's still an authentic image.

Doesn't matter that other photographers were also standing around.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-27 17:56:08 No.2232755
>>2232747
it looks staged, why else would so many photgraphers happen to be exactly at the same place at the same time? why would they (the inhabitants not the photographers) leave a perfect "corpse" lying around? and so on...

>>
AA 2014-01-27 18:07:02 No.2232764
It's a warning to all; don't have integrity enough to admit a mistake, because the system is vicious and will shred you for it. If he had stayed quiet, they would likely have never known, and he would still be working with them.

I don't personally see the big deal. It seems more like a case of letter of the law, rather than spirit. He hasn't added a blood pool to a kid that tripped over, and portrayed it as a injury scene. He edited out a bloody camera on the ground to tidy the image.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-27 20:33:43 No.2232844
>>2232764
Fully agreed.
AP could just have asked for the original instead of firing him.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-27 21:01:39 No.2232864
>>2232764
isn't AP like NG? they require you to include your raw file

I'm not well versed in raw metadata, but does it keep information of things that have been changed?

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-27 21:24:27 No.2232881
>>2232864
>I'm not well versed in raw metadata, but does it keep information of things that have been changed?

You shouldn't be able to alter raw files at all.

Although I'm sure there are hacks to emulate some cameras, the software to create raw files is proprietary and only distributed as camera firmware.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-28 00:07:58 No.2233020
>>2232741
Every time I see this picture I feel sick to my stomach.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-28 00:36:48 No.2233028
is it a big deal in this particualr photo? nah. its obviously purely an aesthetic choice.

but its probably for the best for paid, signed photojournalists to have to not edit their photos (in a way that'd count as photomanipulation). if you let them remove that, somebody might start removing or adding more and more and so on and so on

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-28 03:25:17 No.2233135
AP photographer checking in.

>>Did AP overreact by firing this guy for editing out the camera from his photo?
Nope.

>>contrast/sharpen doesn't count as altering?
Nope.

>>How was he "publicly flogged"?
The same way any AP photographer gets flogged for an ethics breach. They issue a "Picture Kill" notice that sometimes gets published as a correction (read: news story) with any of the affiliates that published the original image. It is rare, but if an image gets a Picture Kill, that photojournalist gets dropped from the AP wire completely. (Typically, they lose their job if they are working for an affiliate, because they can't push images up the wire for the affiliate any longer.)

>>Is there integrity to protect?
Yep. We live in a world in which bloggers are now considered journalists, and the line has blurred in the world of breaking news due to sites like twitter, TMZ and various news blog 'iReport' style sites. The AP has not lowered their journalistic standards.

>>wasn't it AP not too long ago that had like 60% of their images exposed as shopped in major ways, mainly their war (9/11, afghanistan, etc)?
Nope.

>>isn't AP like NG? they require you to include your raw file
Nope.
>>I'm not well versed in raw metadata, but does it keep information of things that have been changed?
Copyright for the photographer and member affiliate as well as the cutline should be in the metadata of the image pushed to the wire.

>>is it a big deal in this particualr photo?
Any ethics breach is considered a big deal because the AP has zero tolerance for ethical breaches. This is known before you start working for the AP, so I'm pretty sure that he knew what would happen. My guess is that someone up the chain found out and he had to make the choice of being fired or resigning.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-28 04:13:53 No.2233169
>>2233135
>>>contrast/sharpen doesn't count as altering?
>Nope.
Yes.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-28 04:26:51 No.2233178
>>2233135
>>>isn't AP like NG? they require you to include your raw file
>Nope.
they should. National Geo does it to prevent people from faking photos. if you change anything in the photo other than development settings, not only will they not print it, they might disregard any submissions from you forever after

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-28 05:07:36 No.2233206
>>2233178
That'd be pretty impractical. As I'm sure >>2233135 would attest to, the quicker you can get a photo out, the better. Having to upload a RAW file would take time, even if done after-the-fact.

Plus wire photographers, unlike NG photographers, can have to submit large numbers of photos from multiple events on the same day. Even with RAWs being included, by the time anything is discovered the photo could have been used across the world.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-28 09:14:16 No.2233334
>>2233178
Shooting for Nat Geo and a wire service are two different beasts. Submitting raw files to a wire service would take way too long, considering press photogs generally submit a ton of photos. And as >>2233206 said, by the time anything is found, the photo could have been used across the world. Wire services don't generally have the luxury of sitting on photos unless it's for a feature piece.

>>2233169
"Altering" in journalism means "doctoring." All photos at some point are going to go through post-processing, generically known as "toning." Corrections need to be made so the photo will reproduce for broadcast or print. The photog who AP fired doctored his photo, and he admitted as such.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-28 09:22:28 No.2233340
>>2232747
right but even an authentic image is inherently biased, you don't see past the frames. All photojournalism (*especially* war photos) has such laughable narrative bias that this really doesn't seem serious by comparison, in my opinion it doesn't change the political content of the photo.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-28 23:50:27 No.2233969
>>2233178
Yeah, raws up the wire while on a mobile connection so that the image can be published 5 minutes after it was shot isn't practical. Most AP photographers I know shoot raw+jpg, and send the jpg over wifi to photomechanic (if laptop, else tablet, then shuttersnitch), do some toning and maybe a crop, and then it is off to the wire.
Since the workflow requires SOOC to meet the lead times, most people aren't concerned about sourcing RAW for proof of ethics. They just fire and blackball those with poor ethics and let everything else fall in place.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 03:29:33 No.2234169
>>2233969
>>2233206
>>2233334
this makes sense when I think about it. NatGeo isn't trying to make breaking headlines, they will have feature columns which could take days if not weeks to organize while AP is sourcing its photos to a bunch of news outlets in a matter of minutes of the event occurring

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 04:02:34 No.2234191
>>2231672

Thank you for this.

But, it's more like making up a quote to make a story have more flare.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 04:04:01 No.2234193
>>2231705
>news journalism

I'm done here.

Plenty of people in here who don't even know what journalism is commenting and critiquing journalism.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 04:05:42 No.2234196
>>2232744

Of course they do.

They aren't there to fucking help anyone. Read up on the Kevin Carter case. A bunch of butthurt liberals drove a great photographer to suicide.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 04:09:14 No.2234200
>>2234196
if you can stand there and take a picture of someone dying because it will earn you money, you are a sociopath and have some pretty fucked up morals

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 04:13:01 No.2234204
>>2234200

A journalist has no obiligation to get involved and possibly change the dynamics of a situation.

He is there to merely document the scene like a fly on the wall. Anything else is an activist.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 04:15:08 No.2234207

[Missing image file: viet+cong+execution.jpg]
>>2234200
>if you can stand there and take a picture of someone dying because it will earn you money, you are a sociopath and have some pretty fucked up morals

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 04:16:37 No.2234208

[Missing image file: PAR115311.jpg]
>>2234200
>if you can stand there and take a picture of someone dying because it will earn you money, you are sociopath and have some pretty fucked up morals

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 04:18:27 No.2234211

[Missing image file: nachtwey+jakarta.jpg]
>>2234200
>if you can stand there and take a picture of someone dying because it will earn you money, you are a sociopath and have some pretty fucked up morals


Clearly war photographers are sociopaths.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 04:20:52 No.2234214
>>2234200
Those pictures just might get people like you to care about it enough to get something done. Which will mean he actual did something to help.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 04:21:05 No.2234215
>>2234204
spoken like a true sociopath

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 04:27:34 No.2234220
>>2234215

Spoken like a person entirely ignorant of how journalism works and who should never attempt it.

Go back to taking pictures of cats and Chinese food.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 04:32:05 No.2234222
>>2234214
I don't have the funds to get there to do anything, so while I feel sympathy for them, I'm not helping, so the picture is moot

>>2234220
>the only kind of photography is sociopathic war images
narrow minded much?

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 04:35:52 No.2234224
>>2234222

You are remarkably egocentric for someone who purports that photojournalists who refuse to involve themselves in news situations are sociopaths.

Projection, much?

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 04:37:25 No.2234225
>>2234222
>narrow minded much?

No, I'm not.

But you sound like at worst a social justice warrior from the suburbs and a trust fund that thinks Huffington Post is actually news.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 04:48:12 No.2234229
>>2234225
if you don't consider them news, it becomes even worse that their photographers aren't doing a job (since their job is to photograph news worthy situations). basically they're just watching someone die to take a picture of it

thanks for helping that argument along

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 04:58:29 No.2234240
>>2234229

So I was right about the social justice warrior with a trust fund who thinks HuffPo is news...

Granted a dangerous or deadly situation is a rare thing and most news stories are peaceful in nature, but there's still plenty of news situations that aren't warfare where news photographers will "watch someone die," as you so eloquently put it.

I guess everyone taking pictures after the Boston bombing is a sociopath, by your narrow-minded and uneducated view of the world.

Seriously, take your self-righteousness and shove it. You obviously know nothing about how journalists operate and the ethics we're often compelled to abide by when we work.

I don't get my giddies about taking photos of the ugly stuff, but I know it has to be done.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 04:59:06 No.2234242
>>2234222
Who said spending money is the only way to help? volunteer, help fund raising etc. If you really care about it, there are ways to help. Fact is those journalist are doing way more than you, who just sit there and bitch about it.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 05:38:02 No.2234272
>>2234240
>So I was right about the social justice warrior with a trust fund who thinks HuffPo is news...
define trustfund. does working your way through school because your alcoholic father divorced your uneducated mother who worked at jcpenney's count as a trust fund babby?

>and the ethics we're often compelled to abide by when we work.
0 empathy? I get the 'let things happen' so you can get a story, but that is sociopathic, and if you can't see that, you're ignorant. and if you watched someone bleed out after the boston marathon, yes, because in your heart of hearts you were hoping they would die so you would have a more compelling story to tell (equating to more money to you).

there is nothing wrong with taking pictures of the aftermath of something to get the news story out, but hoping/wishing for death to happen near you is as sociopathic as it gets, aside from actually causing the harm to watch it occur

on that, I was shooting pictures for high school football when one of the players got concussed. did I snap photos of him on the ground? yes, 1, and then ran to the ambulance by the field house and alerted them to the situation on the field. I took images of the player being cared for by the paramedics (which honestly is a better story due to feel-good). you can get the story out and help out, these things aren't exclusive. what kind of upbringing did you have, so defunct of morality?

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 05:41:02 No.2234273
>>2234272
if war photographers help their subjects they get treated as soldiers and killed.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 05:42:59 No.2234276
>>2234273
they're already free game, buddy. most of them dress like the soldiers anyways

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 05:48:05 No.2234282

[Missing image file: MJ 2012 Photoshop Holocaust 4.jpg]
Journalism and ethics is dead.

It's now about who has the most money to push their agenda.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 05:50:03 No.2234284
>>2234272

Look kid, keep shooting high school football games for your high school newspaper. Maybe you'll understand that "feelings" have a time and place in journalism, but only AFTER the fucking photo is taken.

I've been there when the cops drag out body bags from botched robberies and I've seen a family of charred corpses from a house fire.

How about a flipped jeep with a decapitated corpse in it? Done it.

I've never been in the situation where I could have helped someone, but let's put it this way: Personally, I would ONLY help or get involved if I was the ONLY person who could have saved that person's life. In fact, it's illegal in the United States to ALLOW a crime to happen or NOT seek help when you're the only one present.

However, as a journalist, I will NOT allow myself to get involved with a situation where others are around and will help. I risk becoming part of the story and can no longer write it or shoot it with journalistic integrity.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 05:50:56 No.2234286

[Missing image file: bengal hollocaust.jpg]
>>2234282

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiImage Width3166Image Height1934

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 05:52:29 No.2234289

[Missing image file: 1359104618599.png]
>>2234282

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 05:57:05 No.2234295
>>2234284
>journalistic integrity.
sadly, this nigga is serious; he will sit by and watch someone die, and instead of admitting that is sociopathic, he will cite >jounalistic integrity

>high school newspaper
actually, this was for a city wide publication because it was the state semi-finals in Texas,

I guess you can't read, I clearly said
>paying my own way through college
be kind of weird for a high school kid to be paying for college...

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 06:01:39 No.2234301
>>2234295

Either way, I'm a college graduate in journalism, work for a newspaper full time with benefits and have been published in a number of publications for both writing and photography.

That in and of itself is nearly impossible to do in this job market, so best of luck getting a job in this industry with that can't-do, won't-do touchy-feely disposition you have.

Seriously, good luck.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 06:05:12 No.2234303
>>2234301
so, you're a freelance photographer who has had 1 of his 50 submitted articles published and you think you hit the big time?

I have a full time job at the newspaper I was shooting the football game for

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 06:07:58 No.2234305
>>2234272
Except you and the football player are not getting shot at. In a battlefield, things are not so simple as just go out there and help. who do you help? who is the good guys? if any? both side have wounded, and helping one will likely get you shot by the other.

Keep in mind most of the journalist only get to shoot the aftermath, where people are already dead, most of photos while in combat are with the military, which have strict rules to follow.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 06:13:07 No.2234308
>>2234305
>which have strict rules to follow.

As does your common sense, if you have any.

Otherwise you might be lucky enough to get your name engraved on that wall for fallen journalists in the Nuseum in DC.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 06:14:22 No.2234312
>>2234303

I think you're the freelance photographer here, buddy.

I hope you write as well as shoot, because you'll be out of a job if you can't do it all pretty soon.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 06:19:56 No.2234314
>>2234312
>implying I'm not primarily a writer who was asked to shoot the football game because there were 2 going on in different parts of the state

and, as I said, I have a steady paycheck and published work every sunday, and sometimes multiple times during the week if people have taken vacation, you are bragging about 2 (at most) published pieces (photo+writing). 1 is a career, the other is freelance, I'll let your tiny brain decipher between the 2

>buddy
>kid
>this attempt at belittling
lel

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 07:13:00 No.2234340
>>2234314

>I'm a college graduate in journalism, work for a newspaper full time with benefits and have been published in a number of publications for both writing and photography.

God your reading comprehension sucks.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 07:32:44 No.2234355
Here's an interview with contreras

http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/01/photographer-fired-by-ap-says-decision-was-fair-but-process-wasnt.html

tl;dr: he admits he screwed up but doesn't think AP handled his release properly

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-29 08:07:36 No.2234373

[Missing image file: 1390719972400.jpg]
Visible cloning...
Confirmed for no shoop skills!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)PhotographerNarciso ContrerasImage-Specific Properties:Image Width475Image Height640Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2014:01:29 09:05:35Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height800

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-30 04:26:42 No.2235104
>>2231705
AP has a particular interest in protecting its reputation as an unbiased source. AP has thousands of subscribers encompassing the whole of the geopolitical spectrum. It serves far right and far left outlets in extreme capitalist and extreme socialist societies. At the height of the Cold War, AP was even a supplier to TASS and other Communist bloc state sponsored media. The only way it can survive servicing so many different ideological points of view is by promoting none of them.

AP is solely supported by its subscribers. If a section of them lost faith in the service then it could seriously threaten the existence of the institution.

tl;dr: AP is its reputation. They had to be hard on any infraction.

>>
Anonymous 2014-01-30 07:21:06 No.2235167
>>2235104
>subscribers

And those subscriptions don't come cheap.







[  3  /  a  /  adv  /  an  /  c  /  cgl  /  ck  /  cm  /  co  /  diy  /  fa  /  fit  /  g  /  i  /  ic  /  jp  /  k  /  lit  /  m  /  mlp  /  mu  /  n  /  o  /  p  /  po  /  q  /  sci  /  sp  /  tg  /  toy  /  trv  /  tv  /  v  /  vg  /  vp  /  w  /  wg  /  wsg  /  x  ]

Contact me | All the content on this website come from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

Dofus quêtes

Page loaded in 0.017758 seconds.