Re: Photo manipulation consequences

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert Coe, Feb 8, 2012.

  1. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:00:05 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    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/2012/02/04/4238484/to-our-readers.html#storylink=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
    Robert Coe, Feb 8, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "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
    Chris Pisarra, Feb 8, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Coe

    DaveS Guest

    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.
    DaveS, Feb 8, 2012
    #3
  4. 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
    Doug McDonald, Feb 8, 2012
    #4
  5. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:25:49 -0800, "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?

    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
    Robert Coe, Feb 9, 2012
    #5
  6. 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/all-photos-are-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:[url]http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd[/url]
    Ryan McGinnis, Feb 9, 2012
    #6
  7. 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:[url]http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd[/url]
    Ryan McGinnis, Feb 9, 2012
    #7
  8. Robert Coe

    PeterN Guest

    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 <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 17:36:25 -0800, "Frank S" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:00:05 +1300, Eric Stevens
    >>>>> <>
    >>>>> 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/2012/02/04/4238484/to-our-readers.html#storylink=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/all-photos-are-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/sacramen...sacramento-bee-fires-bryan-patrick-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
    PeterN, Feb 9, 2012
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alan Justice
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    527
    Alan Justice
    Jun 8, 2005
  2. NikkoJay via PhotoKB.com

    photo manipulation

    NikkoJay via PhotoKB.com, Oct 15, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    317
  3. Will Dockery

    Will Dockery photo (original & photoshop manipulation)

    Will Dockery, Jul 8, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    453
    Orson Wells as CitizenCain
    Oct 13, 2009
  4. RichA

    Microsoft ad endorses photo manipulation

    RichA, Oct 22, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    50
    Views:
    997
    John Turco
    Nov 28, 2010
  5. Rich

    Re: Microsoft ad endorses photo manipulation

    Rich, Oct 23, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    254
    peter
    Oct 24, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page