Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Reuters drops Beirut photographer

Reply
Thread Tools

Reuters drops Beirut photographer

 
 
no_name
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2006
Mxsmanic wrote:

> Ron Hunter writes:
>
>
>>It depends on how they are 'edited'. Cropping for space, enlarging for
>>detail (or to avoid showing objectionable material ...

>
>
> Like, say, a bomb or a victim?
>
>
>>Changing
>>the picture to indicate something patently false, or misleading, is
>>dishonest, no matter at what point it is done.

>
>
> Removing "objectionable" material is exactly that. The real world is
> filled with objectionable material, and it can't be cloned out of
> existence.
>


Depends on how the "objectionable" is removed. E.G. - you have a photo
of a bombed out building that includes a dead body at one side.

It's generally considered bad manners, disrespectful to the dead, to
gratuitously use their image, but you want the image of the bombed out
building. It's important to the story. The body is not necessarily
needed to tell that story.

So...?

It's acceptable to CROP the image to include the bombed out building
while excluding the body.

It would not be acceptable to use a clone tool to remove the body. You
either find a different photo or you include what you have to in order
to tell the story.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2006

"cjcampbell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ps.com...
>


>
> The thing is, Reuters (and most reputable agencies) don't ever seem to
> catch these things themselves. They wait for someone else to expose the
> fraud. And all the time, they put enormous pressure on photographers to
> come up with the most visually exciting material they can. Just the
> Jerusalem branch of Reuters probably gets upwards of 10,000 images a
> day from all kinds of free-lancers. Only a fraction see print. They
> have one guy who reviews all these images and selects the ones he
> thinks will sell. Plus, he takes his own photos as well. So a picture
> has to really stand out to get selected. The temptation to "enhance"
> things a little is probably overwhelming to a number of photographers.
> They know that the chances of getting caught are minimal, and that the
> only way they are going to make any money is to come up with something
> spectacular.
>
> What it comes down to is something like the use of steroids in sports
> -- too many athletes have the attitude that you can't win without them
> and that it is only breaking the rules if you are caught.
>
> Reuters (and most "reputable" agencies) may have a strict policy, but
> as a practical matter these polices only apply to photographers who get
> caught cheating. And all of these agencies know it, and all of them
> wink at it. What else can they do?
>


I take your point - it's virtually impossible for any agency to scrutinise
huge numbers of pictures in detail. However, I know of a number of
occassions where a picture has been rejected by an agency because of
suspicion it's been "doctored" - in one case, I can categorically confirm
the picture WAS genuine (and no, it wasn't one of mine!) These cases never
get reported, or blogged about of course.

OOH - I know of quite a few more cases where an altered image has gone
through undetected.....

I think the bottom line is that everybody in the business knows the rules,
everybody knows that doctored images do immense harm to the integrity of
photojournalism - so nobody should complain too loud when they get caught
and blacklisted.

Thanks.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
cjcampbell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2006

Mike wrote:

>
> I think the bottom line is that everybody in the business knows the rules,
> everybody knows that doctored images do immense harm to the integrity of
> photojournalism - so nobody should complain too loud when they get caught
> and blacklisted.


Right. There will always be a few who seem to live by the motto of J.R.
Ewing: "Once your ethics go, the rest is easy." Fortunately, most
people still manage to hang onto their ethics.

 
Reply With Quote
 
ETBass
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2006

This site shows all that has been discussed here and then some.
Especially the last part which is almost hilarious if it wasn't so
serious. I'd love to here the editors excuse for the "oversite". HUH!!
Be sure to pay attention to the hat under his arm.

http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

That was posted the lying, left wing, treasonous, all the news that's
fit to make up, leave out or exaggerate... NEW YORK TIMES.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/pa...=1&oref=slogin

Then the typical lame explanation which is even less believable.

Here is one about how the Palestinians manipulate public opinion along
with the all to willing liberal euro lying media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys#IIfAj_eg2EE

How many people base their ideology and beliefs on what they see in
the news from sources like these big MSM organizations? Beware of
what you read as news, it has now become editorialized by the left at
every chance and via every method.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger Merriman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2006
Mike <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >>
> >>

> > Mike,
> > I've seen photos from Beirut where in the complete devastation of a
> > building, one could see children's toys lined up. I remember one with a
> > teddy bear. I'm wondering if these have been set up before the photograph
> > was taken. If this is so, to me at least, it's the same as photoshopping a
> > picture. It's setting up the photo for dramatisation purposes. Don't you
> > think?
> > Marcel
> >

>
> Hi Marcel,
> I would agree that arranging the contents of the shot before taking a
> picture would be a similar thing (ie. the image would not be a true
> representation of what the photojournalist actually saw), and yes, it most
> definitely does go on. Reputable agencies frown upon this as much as they do
> on photoshopping.
>
> I think the issue here is trust - agencies are nothing if they do not have
> the trust and confidence of their customers. If customers (ie. news outlets)
> feel an agency is putting out digitally altered or "rearranged" images then
> they will not trust that agency.
>
> Since the arrival of digital manipulation, good agencies have (rightly)
> become even more sensitive about the integrity of their images, and
> photoshopping a picture is almost universally unacceptable.
>
> Remember - fake photos are almost as old as the camera itself!
>
> Mike


indeed the line "the camera never lies" has always been porkies.

roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2006
ETBass <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>This site shows all that has been discussed here and then some.
>Especially the last part which is almost hilarious if it wasn't so
>serious. I'd love to here the editors excuse for the "oversite". HUH!!
>Be sure to pay attention to the hat under his arm.
>
>http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/
>
>That was posted the lying, left wing, treasonous, all the news that's
>fit to make up, leave out or exaggerate... NEW YORK TIMES.


Would that be the same "left wing" NYT that was reprinting Bush
administration propaganda and lies in the lead up to the invasion of
Iraq?

>Then the typical lame explanation which is even less believable.
>
>Here is one about how the Palestinians manipulate public opinion along
>with the all to willing liberal euro lying media.


You're just another right-wing bigot.

--
Ray Fischer
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
no_name
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2006
Ray Fischer wrote:


> Would that be the same "left wing" NYT that was reprinting Bush
> administration propaganda and lies in the lead up to the invasion of
> Iraq?


Remember "If you're not with us, you're against us"?
 
Reply With Quote
 
EDM
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2006
"no_name" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:L3lFg.132839$(E-Mail Removed). com...
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> > Would that be the same "left wing" NYT that was reprinting Bush
> > administration propaganda and lies in the lead up to the invasion of
> > Iraq?

>
> Remember "If you're not with us, you're against us"?


It was even worse than that. The exact line was, "You're
either with us, or you're with the terrorists."

It was the first time in human history that 5.8 billion people
all rolled their eyes in disgust at the same time. Joseph
Goebbels would have been proud.

And don't forget the "Countdown to Iraq", war mongering
brought to you by MSNBC 24/7 for eight months. I doubt
many Americans even remember it.


 
Reply With Quote
 
no_name
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-20-2006
EDM wrote:

> "no_name" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:L3lFg.132839$(E-Mail Removed). com...
>
>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Would that be the same "left wing" NYT that was reprinting Bush
>>>administration propaganda and lies in the lead up to the invasion of
>>>Iraq?

>>
>>Remember "If you're not with us, you're against us"?

>
>
> It was even worse than that. The exact line was, "You're
> either with us, or you're with the terrorists."
>
> It was the first time in human history that 5.8 billion people
> all rolled their eyes in disgust at the same time. Joseph
> Goebbels would have been proud.
>
> And don't forget the "Countdown to Iraq", war mongering
> brought to you by MSNBC 24/7 for eight months. I doubt
> many Americans even remember it.
>
>


Oh, I do. Don't remember much from the news in 2004, but I remember the
build-up to the war.

--

These are my views. If you've got a problem with it, you can blame it on
me, but this is what I think. I am not the official spokes-person for
any Government, Commercial or Educational institution.

John
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wireless Connection Drops, then connects, drops... garywi Wireless Networking 1 02-12-2009 02:26 PM
How did Reuters know Beirut IDF attack photos were doctored? barb Digital Photography 104 09-05-2006 09:50 AM
ot: the best beer pong/beirut player in the world bml Digital Photography 2 09-21-2005 11:38 AM
Cannot get Reuters Site Kevin Computer Support 7 01-17-2004 03:40 PM
Disposable DVD's Far from Being a Sure Bet (Reuters) Tarkus DVD Video 7 09-16-2003 05:40 PM



Advertisments