Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Photo manipulation consequences

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Photo manipulation consequences

 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2012
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:00:05 +1300, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
: On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:19:01 -0800, Savageduck
: <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
:
: >SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are consequences to
: >photo-manipulation.
: ><
: >http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/423...ylink=misearch
: >>
:
: "To maintain the credibility of The Sacramento Bee, documentary
: photographs will not be manipulated in any way that alters the
: reality of the image."
:
: In other words, what you see is what he got.

Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the image"
mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the birds,
the flowers, and the frog?

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris Pisarra
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2012
"Robert Coe" wrote

Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the image"
mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the
birds,
the flowers, and the frog?


The rules of the game in photojournalism are simple--no
Photoshop. period. what you see is what you get. If you break the rules,
you lose the game. What's so hard to understand?

Chris


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
DaveS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2012
On 2/7/2012 11:25 PM, Chris Pisarra wrote:
> "Robert Coe" wrote
>
> Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the image"
> mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the
> birds,
> the flowers, and the frog?
>
>
> The rules of the game in photojournalism are simple--no
> Photoshop. period. what you see is what you get. If you break the rules,
> you lose the game. What's so hard to understand?
>
> Chris


Really? No cropping?

Dave S.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2012
On 2/7/2012 11:25 PM, Chris Pisarra wrote:
> "Robert Coe" wrote
>
> Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the image"
> mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the
> birds,
> the flowers, and the frog?
>
>
> The rules of the game in photojournalism are simple--no
> Photoshop. period. what you see is what you get. If you break the rules,
> you lose the game. What's so hard to understand?


Its VERY hard to understand! You can't use "Curves"? "Highlight-Shadow"?
Color temperature correction? Lateral CA correction?

Perspective correction for architecturals? (But you can use PC lenses?)

Doug McDonald



 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2012
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:25:49 -0800, "Chris Pisarra" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: "Robert Coe" wrote
: >
: > Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the image"
: > mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the
: > birds, the flowers, and the frog?
:
: The rules of the game in photojournalism are simple--no Photoshop. period.
: what you see is what you get. If you break the rules, you lose the game.
: What's so hard to understand?

Since you ask, it's how you can say such a thing with a straight face. The
rules, in this case, are whatever the Sacramento Bee says they are. And their
rules contain a vague clause (quoted above) that's open to pretty much
whatever interpretation suits the interpreter. That may be simple to you, but
it's not very simple to me. Does the use of Photoshop sometimes, always, or
never "alter the reality of the image"? Well, yes and/or no. If you think you
can explain it definitively, please feel free to try.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ryan McGinnis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2012
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Frank S wrote:

>
> At some level there is no "reality"; at one a little closer to What You See
> Is All There Is, is
> http://www.creativepro.com/article/a...re-manipulated


Thanks for posting this link! It's a very straight-foward explanation of
common issues that photographers face with post-processing that I don't
think the general public is aware of. Good reading!

-Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:<a href="http://bit.ly"...p://bit.ly</a>/aMH6Qd
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ryan McGinnis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2012
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, DaveS wrote:

> On 2/7/2012 11:25 PM, Chris Pisarra wrote:
>> "Robert Coe" wrote
>>
>> Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the image"
>> mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the
>> birds,
>> the flowers, and the frog?
>>
>>
>> The rules of the game in photojournalism are
>> simple--no
>> Photoshop. period. what you see is what you get. If you break the rules,
>> you lose the game. What's so hard to understand?
>>
>> Chris

>
> Really? No cropping?


Heh, exactly. The rules are most certainly NOT 'not photoshop'.
Photoshop is a standard program given to photojournalists. It's what's
done within Photoshop that is restricted, and the restrictions depend on
the publication and their own ethical guidelines.

--
-Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:<a href="http://bit.ly"...p://bit.ly</a>/aMH6Qd
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2012
On 2/9/2012 12:12 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-02-07 18:24:43 -0800, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>
>> On 2012-02-07 17:55:15 -0800, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>
>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 17:36:25 -0800, "Frank S" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:00:05 +1300, Eric Stevens
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> : On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:19:01 -0800, Savageduck
>>>>> : <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>> :
>>>>> : >SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are
>>>>> consequences to
>>>>> : >photo-manipulation.
>>>>> : ><
>>>>> :
>>>>>> http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/423...ylink=misearch
>>>>>>
>>>>> : >>
>>>>> :
>>>>> : "To maintain the credibility of The Sacramento Bee, documentary
>>>>> : photographs will not be manipulated in any way that alters the
>>>>> : reality of the image."
>>>>> :
>>>>> : In other words, what you see is what he got.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the
>>>>> image"
>>>>> mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of
>>>>> the
>>>>> birds,
>>>>> the flowers, and the frog?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At some level there is no "reality"; at one a little closer to What
>>>> You See
>>>> Is All There Is, is
>>>> http://www.creativepro.com/article/a...re-manipulated
>>>
>>> I doubt if that level of reality changing is what the editor of the
>>> Sacramento Bee was objecting to. But putting in an Egret, or
>>> Sunflowers that weren't originally there could be expected to raise
>>> the editor's ire. So too could increasing the size of the flames in a
>>> fire.
>>>
>>> Clearly the editor wants the photographs to depict what was there at
>>> the time and producing something that was literally a figment of the
>>> photographer's imagination doesn't fit that bill.
>>>
>>> There have been other similarly altered news photographs. I recall the
>>> photograph of the launch of a number of Iranian intermediate range
>>> missiles in which the trails of two which failed were edited out and
>>> replaced by grafted in trails from other successful rockets. I know
>>> there have been other similar examples.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Eric Stevens

>>
>> Exactly. This was more than the issue of the egret and the frog.
>> It seems that Bryan Patrick has engaged in alteration of images over
>> several years, in direct violation of the Sacramento Bee's policies.
>> It seems that the egret shot was just the final straw and
>> embarrassment for the SacBee. He knew the requirements needed of
>> photographs to be used in that newspaper, and the various competitions
>> he entered. He chose to be devious and to cheat. There is a big
>> difference between making exposure/saturation/contrast adjustments and
>> changing the elements of the captured scene and the relationship of
>> subject animals, individuals, or magnitude of physical phenomena such
>> as flames.
>>
>> It is also worth noting that along with being fired, he was stripped
>> of several professional level prizes and awards.

>
> Here is some more, and it is worth noting that this goes beyond the SacBee;
> <
> http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...ick-alter.html
>
>>

> < http://www.sfbappa.org/ >


To my way of thinking the photographer has an obligation to stick within
the rules of his employer or the competition organizer. Placing an
object in the image that was not originally there is clearly
manipulation. It may be allowable in some venues, but not in others.
If a news photographer alters the image so that it is not a fair
representation of the scene he shot, it would be no different than a
print reporter writing that he saw the Duck and I climbing a mountain
and talking about our struggles.


--
Peter
 
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
generics: is this a good/bad idea; and eclipse consequences allen@rrsg.ee.uct.ac.za Java 6 09-21-2005 08:34 AM
Labelling prints in galleries: "photo" vs "digital photo" vs "digital manipulation"... Alan Justice Digital Photography 2 06-08-2005 03:10 PM
Spyware and unintended consequences Governor Swill Computer Support 4 01-11-2005 07:24 AM
Consequences of streaking? Brian Computer Support 20 12-16-2004 02:04 PM
Consequences of using "nt authority\network service"? Peter Rilling ASP .Net 0 08-27-2004 05:04 PM



Advertisments