Re: Spotty PJ photos

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mark Thomas, Jul 6, 2008.

  1. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:
    >
    >
    > http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?index=24
    >
    >
    >


    Perhaps they are just bugs flying by near the camera... (or pigs!)

    Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that
    image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a bit
    funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that, and not
    that it really matters in the context.

    (O:


    Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit of
    image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a very
    slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes, then...

    It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing safeguards -
    I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.
    Mark Thomas, Jul 6, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mark Thomas

    Poldie Guest

    Mark Thomas wrote:
    > Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit of
    > image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a very
    > slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes, then...
    >
    > It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing safeguards -
    > I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.


    Starts with removing dust, ends up making the picture `better` via the
    clone tool:

    http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only=
    Poldie, Jul 6, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Poldie wrote:
    > Mark Thomas wrote:
    >> Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit
    >> of image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a
    >> very slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes,
    >> then...
    >>
    >> It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing safeguards
    >> - I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.

    >
    > Starts with removing dust, ends up making the picture `better` via the
    > clone tool:
    >
    > http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only=
    >


    (O:

    Yes, that example sprang to mind as I was typing my reply.. When I
    first saw that image, I was simply dumbstruck. It looks like what
    happens the very first time someone encounters Photoshop and the clone
    tool - "ooh, look at what *that* does!".

    It just defies belief that someone could even be bothered to save that
    image, let alone submit it (accidentally or otherwise) for publication
    so it would actually be seen by anyone else.., let alone that any
    editor, even if blind drunk, would let it get through.
    Mark Thomas, Jul 6, 2008
    #3
  4. Mark Thomas wrote:
    > Alan Browne wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?index=24
    >>

    []
    > Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that
    > image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a
    > bit funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that,
    > and not that it really matters in the context.


    They must have changed the index - I see no firefighters.....

    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 6, 2008
    #4
  5. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Mark Thomas wrote:
    >> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?index=24
    >>>

    > []
    >> Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that
    >> image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a
    >> bit funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that,
    >> and not that it really matters in the context.

    >
    > They must have changed the index - I see no firefighters.....
    >
    > David
    >
    >

    Aha! Sounds like an admission of guilt... (O:


    Actually, no, it's still there - try here for the original pic:
    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?index=26

    and there's several other examples of dust spots, eg:
    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?index=17

    Browsing through these reveals quite a few good-to-exceptional images,
    especially below about no.15, but they'll prolly shift them again...
    Mark Thomas, Jul 6, 2008
    #5
  6. Mark Thomas wrote:
    []
    > Actually, no, it's still there - try here for the original pic:
    > http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?index=26
    >
    > and there's several other examples of dust spots, eg:
    > http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?index=17
    >
    > Browsing through these reveals quite a few good-to-exceptional images,
    > especially below about no.15, but they'll prolly shift them again...


    Thanks, Mark. Yes, I see what you mean, although in such dusty
    circumstances it's hardly surprising.

    Look to be quite bad fires....

    Thanks,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 6, 2008
    #6
  7. Mark Thomas

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 09:12:36 +1000, Mark Thomas
    <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
    : Alan Browne wrote:
    : >
    : >
    : > http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?index=24
    : >
    : >
    : >
    :
    : Perhaps they are just bugs flying by near the camera... (or pigs!)
    :
    : Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that
    : image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a bit
    : funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that, and not
    : that it really matters in the context.

    I think the foreground figures are simply out of focus. These pictures aren't
    so hot (pun not intended, but recognized), and the one Alan selected may be
    the worst of the bunch. But the photographer(s) were in a danger area and
    obviously in a hurry, so I'd cut them some slack. The amateurs at the
    Minnesota bridge collapse a few months ago did a better job, but they had
    neither danger nor time constraints to contend with.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jul 6, 2008
    #7
  8. Mark Thomas

    MI Guest

    On 7/5/08 11:30 PM, in article g4popa$prc$, "Mark
    Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >> Mark Thomas wrote:
    >>> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogaller
    >>>> y?index=24
    >>>>

    >> []
    >>> Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that
    >>> image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a
    >>> bit funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that,
    >>> and not that it really matters in the context.

    >>
    >> They must have changed the index - I see no firefighters.....
    >>
    >> David
    >>
    >>

    > Aha! Sounds like an admission of guilt... (O:
    >
    >
    > Actually, no, it's still there - try here for the original pic:
    > http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?i
    > ndex=26
    >
    > and there's several other examples of dust spots, eg:
    > http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?i
    > ndex=17
    >
    > Browsing through these reveals quite a few good-to-exceptional images,
    > especially below about no.15, but they'll prolly shift them again...


    What you list as the original pic is not the one I saw. It was as Alan
    Browne stated in his post. Could be they automatically update the pictures.

    --
    Martha
    MI, Jul 6, 2008
    #8
  9. Mark Thomas

    Vagabond Guest

    Mark Thomas wrote:
    > Poldie wrote:
    >> Mark Thomas wrote:
    >>> Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit
    >>> of image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a
    >>> very slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes,
    >>> then...
    >>>
    >>> It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing
    >>> safeguards - I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.

    >>
    >> Starts with removing dust, ends up making the picture `better` via the
    >> clone tool:
    >>
    >> http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only=
    >>

    >
    > (O:
    >
    > Yes, that example sprang to mind as I was typing my reply.. When I
    > first saw that image, I was simply dumbstruck. It looks like what
    > happens the very first time someone encounters Photoshop and the clone
    > tool - "ooh, look at what *that* does!".
    >
    > It just defies belief that someone could even be bothered to save that
    > image, let alone submit it (accidentally or otherwise) for publication
    > so it would actually be seen by anyone else.., let alone that any
    > editor, even if blind drunk, would let it get through.


    That is also puzzling me. It is as though someone has made a clumsy attempt
    to discredit the photographer.

    I am new here, most people would not know me or have seen any of my profile
    pages, but as a journalist of thirty plus years standing, I do not know of
    any photographer with sufficient credibility to be published who isn't
    extremely well experienced in photo manipulation. There is definitely
    something untoward about that image. I am not a photojournalist by the way,
    I use a photographer if I know beforehand that I will need one, but have
    always carried a camera "just in case". There have been a lot of "just in
    case" occasions over the years. Until recently it has been a Nikon SLR,
    with a couple of primes and a 28-200 fitted. Plus an MD-12.

    I started with an FT and for the last couple of decades it has been a less
    than top of the line FE. It has never let me down so I never upgraded it. I
    have recently made the switch to digital and am not really happy so far, to
    the extent where I am still trying various cameras hoping to find something
    with which I feel more confident. I have just purchased a Lumix DMC-FZ50
    after seeing the results that one of my daughters has been achieving. It is
    a very versatile camera, fast to get into action, amazing lens for such a
    low cost camera, and the image stabilisation is remarkable. I prefer it to
    either the Rebel or the Olympus E500 that I have been using to date. But
    then my requirements are probably very different to many amateur or
    professional photographers. I am not looking for a beautiful shot, just a
    clearly defined graphical illustration. I often need to get a clean shot
    very quickly, often without knowing beforehand what focal length to expect.
    You don't know if they are going to come out of that door a metre away, or
    the one at the other end of the block. That sort of thing.

    The Panasonic has its limitations, as do all digitals, particularly small
    sensor digitals so I still carry the Nikon for those occasions when
    something faster is required.

    I am well versed in Photoshop, right from Adobe's very early days. For
    years I would shoot film and then scan (drum scanner) it into a digital
    image for final processing. I am not alone in that, while everyone did in
    the early days, now that DSLRs have made such advances it is mostly just us
    old dinosaurs who are still doing it. My favourite photographer also still
    uses a mix of film and digital on assignments. But then he is around my age
    and we have worked together for decades.

    This is just a little bit of introduction as I think that I might stay with
    some of these groups for a while, but back to the thread, my other concern
    is that not only a supposedly experienced photographer produced such a
    pathetic image, but that it passed all editing and proofreading, that it
    was actually published. That is amazing. There has to be more to the story.



    Regards

    Tony
    Vagabond, Jul 6, 2008
    #9
  10. Mark Thomas

    Vagabond Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > Vagabond > wrote:
    >
    >> That is also puzzling me. It is as though someone has made a clumsy
    >> attempt to discredit the photographer.

    >
    >
    > See my other reply to Robert Coe. That was certainly not the intent.
    > And as a self declared "newbie" here you should not even make such
    > hedged declarations.



    What on earth are you on about?

    Hedged?

    What I said was quite clear, there was no hedging involved.

    I responded to the discussion on this image.
    http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only=
    I was agreeing with Mark Thomas' comments, not anything that you had said.
    Threads do tend to wander a little, perhaps it would behove you to check
    what a person is responding to before attempting to remonstrate with them.

    As for the rest, I am not a "self declared newbie" at all, I have been
    involved with usenet since its inception and ARPANET before that. Like many
    of the old hands I started with limping into the backbone with a 300 baud
    accoustic modem and Unix. Close to three decades from "newbie" status.

    I simply took the opportunity to give some introductory detail about myself.

    Regards

    Tony
    Vagabond, Jul 6, 2008
    #10
  11. On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:30:14 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
    > Alan Browne wrote:
    >> Modesta are fast moving news. The photos in the series in the LA Times

    >
    > Ooops: meant Goleta, not Modesto.


    And, you meant "Big Sur".
    Allodoxaphobia, Jul 6, 2008
    #11
  12. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > Vagabond > wrote:
    >> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>> Vagabond > wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> That is also puzzling me. It is as though someone has made a clumsy
    >>>> attempt to discredit the photographer.
    >>>
    >>> See my other reply to Robert Coe. That was certainly not the intent.
    >>> And as a self declared "newbie" here you should not even make such
    >>> hedged declarations.

    >>
    >> What on earth are you on about? Hedged?
    >>
    >> What I said was quite clear, there was no hedging involved.
    >>
    >> I responded to the discussion on this image.
    >> http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only=
    >>
    >> I was agreeing with Mark Thomas' comments, not anything that you had
    >> said....

    >
    > ...You had no cause to say "... attempt to discredit the
    > photographer." Your words. Your assumptions. Your hedging.


    Alan, did you get out of bed on the wrong side? Re-read the thread MUCH
    more carefully, and you will see it had wandered off your original theme
    and Vagabond did *not* direct those words at you, nor were they about
    the images you posted.

    He was referring to the rather famous and very poorly photoshopped
    images by Adnan Hajj, eg:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1678653/posts
    (Note, I just grabbed that as the first link I found, didn't read it, am
    not endorsing content... (O:)

    ... and he wondered, as I did, how on earth *those* images (not the Big
    Sur ones!!) could possibly get to press, unless there was a story behind
    the story...

    So when he referred to the 'clumsy attempt to discredit', it was most
    definitely not aimed at you. (And I can't see any bad attribution that
    would make you think otherwise...)

    Sheeesh indeed!
    Mark Thomas, Jul 7, 2008
    #12
  13. Mark Thomas

    Vagabond Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > Mark Thomas wrote:
    >> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>> Vagabond > wrote:
    >>>> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>>>> Vagabond > wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> That is also puzzling me. It is as though someone has made a
    >>>>>> clumsy attempt to discredit the photographer.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> See my other reply to Robert Coe. That was certainly not the
    >>>>> intent. And as a self declared "newbie" here you should not even
    >>>>> make such hedged declarations.
    >>>>
    >>>> What on earth are you on about? Hedged?
    >>>>
    >>>> What I said was quite clear, there was no hedging involved.
    >>>>
    >>>> I responded to the discussion on this image.
    >>>> http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only=
    >>>>
    >>>> I was agreeing with Mark Thomas' comments, not anything that you had
    >>>> said....
    >>>
    >>> ...You had no cause to say "... attempt to discredit the
    >>> photographer." Your words. Your assumptions. Your hedging.

    >>
    >> Alan, did you get out of bed on the wrong side? Re-read the thread
    >> MUCH more carefully, and you will see it had wandered off your
    >> original theme

    >
    > You're absolutely right Mark.
    >
    > Appologies Vagabond. Thing is I read the e-mail in series rather than
    > as a tree, which is no excuse.


    Not a problem. It is nice to have someone courteous enough to apologise,
    that is becoming a rare thing.

    Regards

    Tony
    Vagabond, Jul 9, 2008
    #13
  14. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Vagabond > wrote:
    > Alan Browne wrote:
    >> You're absolutely right Mark.
    >>
    >> Appologies Vagabond. Thing is I read the e-mail in series rather than
    >> as a tree, which is no excuse.

    >
    > Not a problem. It is nice to have someone courteous enough to apologise,
    > that is becoming a rare thing.
    >
    > Regards
    >
    > Tony


    I second that - well done Alan. (I too have been guilty of misreading
    threads..., but I try to take it on the chin!)
    Mark Thomas, Jul 9, 2008
    #14
  15. Mark Thomas

    Poldie Guest

    Mark Thomas wrote:

    > Yes, that example sprang to mind as I was typing my reply.. When I
    > first saw that image, I was simply dumbstruck. It looks like what
    > happens the very first time someone encounters Photoshop and the clone
    > tool - "ooh, look at what *that* does!".
    >
    > It just defies belief that someone could even be bothered to save that
    > image, let alone submit it (accidentally or otherwise) for publication
    > so it would actually be seen by anyone else.., let alone that any
    > editor, even if blind drunk, would let it get through.


    Perhaps there should be an annual prize for the best one?

    http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/07/iranian_missile_tests_not_what.html
    Poldie, Jul 10, 2008
    #15
    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. John A.
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    919
    John A.
    Jul 4, 2004
  2. beachpirate2

    Misc mountain photos and beach sunrise photos

    beachpirate2, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    587
    Paul Heslop
    Nov 12, 2003
  3. Iconoclast

    Are digital photos better than B/W photos?

    Iconoclast, Dec 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    672
    Steve House
    Jan 24, 2004
  4. Collector»NZ
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    307
    Collector»NZ
    Jul 9, 2006
  5. Tim Conway
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    754
Loading...

Share This Page