Reuters drops Beirut photographer

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Celcius, Aug 8, 2006.

  1. Celcius

    Celcius Guest

    Celcius, Aug 8, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Celcius

    Mike Guest

    "Celcius" <> wrote in message
    news:eba3l3$k6b$...
    > Hi all!
    >
    > We've often talked about digitally "corrected" photography.
    > I came across this BBC news this AM:
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5254838.stm
    >
    > Best regards to all,
    >
    > Marcel
    >


    Reuters (and most reputable agencies) have a strict policy about this type
    of thing and he's not the first to be caught out and fired. Won't be the
    last either. What makes this case interesting to me, is the absolute botch
    he made of the Photoshopping. It stands out like a sore thumb. I also
    question why he felt the need to try and make the smoke more dramatic -
    there are loads of similar photos available from Lebanon (sad but true), so
    it's not as if he'd be able to create a unique image which would sail into
    print.
    Mike, Aug 8, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Celcius

    Celcius Guest

    "Mike" <> wrote in message
    news:eba5s6$316$...
    >
    > "Celcius" <> wrote in message
    > news:eba3l3$k6b$...
    > > Hi all!
    > >
    > > We've often talked about digitally "corrected" photography.
    > > I came across this BBC news this AM:
    > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5254838.stm
    > >
    > > Best regards to all,
    > >
    > > Marcel
    > >

    >
    > Reuters (and most reputable agencies) have a strict policy about this type
    > of thing and he's not the first to be caught out and fired. Won't be the
    > last either. What makes this case interesting to me, is the absolute botch
    > he made of the Photoshopping. It stands out like a sore thumb. I also
    > question why he felt the need to try and make the smoke more dramatic -
    > there are loads of similar photos available from Lebanon (sad but true),

    so
    > it's not as if he'd be able to create a unique image which would sail into
    > print.
    >
    >

    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
    Celcius, Aug 8, 2006
    #3
  4. Celcius

    Paul Heslop Guest

    Celcius wrote:
    >
    > "Mike" <> wrote in message
    > news:eba5s6$316$...
    > >
    > > "Celcius" <> wrote in message
    > > news:eba3l3$k6b$...
    > > > Hi all!
    > > >
    > > > We've often talked about digitally "corrected" photography.
    > > > I came across this BBC news this AM:
    > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5254838.stm
    > > >
    > > > Best regards to all,
    > > >
    > > > Marcel
    > > >

    > >
    > > Reuters (and most reputable agencies) have a strict policy about this type
    > > of thing and he's not the first to be caught out and fired. Won't be the
    > > last either. What makes this case interesting to me, is the absolute botch
    > > he made of the Photoshopping. It stands out like a sore thumb. I also
    > > question why he felt the need to try and make the smoke more dramatic -
    > > there are loads of similar photos available from Lebanon (sad but true),

    > so
    > > it's not as if he'd be able to create a unique image which would sail into
    > > print.
    > >
    > >

    > 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


    It certainly is, but harder to prove. the image of smoke was obviously
    redone, he says it was dusty I say his image had even had more smoke
    added. Pity, as it doesn't need any trickery to show that the country
    is being pummelled by war machines.
    --
    Paul (Neurotic to the bone No doubt about it)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Aug 8, 2006
    #4
  5. Celcius bedacht in news:eba7fk$omf$:

    > "Mike" <> wrote in message
    > news:eba5s6$316$...
    >>
    >> "Celcius" <> wrote in message
    >> news:eba3l3$k6b$...
    >> > Hi all!
    >> >
    >> > We've often talked about digitally "corrected" photography.
    >> > I came across this BBC news this AM:
    >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5254838.stm
    >> >
    >> > Best regards to all,
    >> >
    >> > Marcel
    >> >

    >>
    >> Reuters (and most reputable agencies) have a strict policy about this
    >> type of thing and he's not the first to be caught out and fired.
    >> Won't be the last either. What makes this case interesting to me, is
    >> the absolute botch he made of the Photoshopping. It stands out like a
    >> sore thumb. I also question why he felt the need to try and make the
    >> smoke more dramatic - there are loads of similar photos available
    >> from Lebanon (sad but true),

    > so
    >> it's not as if he'd be able to create a unique image which would sail
    >> into print.
    >>
    >>

    > 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
    >
    >


    There are two things at issue here. The first is the arranging of
    photographs, with people posing (the infamous 'green helmet' for
    instance) and the careful selection of viewpoints etc. This may be
    acceptable for purposes of illustration or highlighting certain points in
    a news report. But this is, in my opinion, totally unacceptable in
    photojournalism, i.e. the reporting of a story (solely) through
    photographs.
    The other thing is the doctoring of photographs. That is totally
    unacceptable in reporting. (period)

    JL
    Justus Lipsius, Aug 8, 2006
    #5
  6. Gerrit 't Hart, Aug 8, 2006
    #6
  7. Celcius

    Celcius Guest

    "Gerrit 't Hart" <> wrote in message
    news:44d8b903$0$21304$...
    >
    > "Celcius" <> wrote in message
    > news:eba3l3$k6b$...
    > > Hi all!
    > >
    > > We've often talked about digitally "corrected" photography.
    > > I came across this BBC news this AM:
    > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5254838.stm
    > >
    > > Best regards to all,
    > >
    > > Marcel
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Have a look at this.
    > http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014929.php
    >
    > It all looks very suspect.
    >
    > Gerrit
    >
    >

    You know Gerrit, I never questioned photos before today.
    I never thought that people would go to this extent to "make a point"
    Of course, come to think of it, one can photograph / film what you want to
    make a point... one can even "arrange" the scenery... I must be very honest
    or dumb.
    Marcel
    Celcius, Aug 8, 2006
    #7
  8. Celcius

    Mike Guest


    >>
    >>

    > 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
    Mike, Aug 8, 2006
    #8
  9. Celcius

    kctan Guest

    It is a moral issue. I've seen well doctored photo using darkroom technique.
    Photoshop just make it easy.

    "Celcius" <> wrote in message
    news:ebaeff$13r$...
    >
    > "Gerrit 't Hart" <> wrote in message
    > news:44d8b903$0$21304$...
    >>
    >> "Celcius" <> wrote in message
    >> news:eba3l3$k6b$...
    >> > Hi all!
    >> >
    >> > We've often talked about digitally "corrected" photography.
    >> > I came across this BBC news this AM:
    >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5254838.stm
    >> >
    >> > Best regards to all,
    >> >
    >> > Marcel
    >> >
    >> >

    >>
    >> Have a look at this.
    >> http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014929.php
    >>
    >> It all looks very suspect.
    >>
    >> Gerrit
    >>
    >>

    > You know Gerrit, I never questioned photos before today.
    > I never thought that people would go to this extent to "make a point"
    > Of course, come to think of it, one can photograph / film what you want to
    > make a point... one can even "arrange" the scenery... I must be very
    > honest
    > or dumb.
    > Marcel
    >
    >
    kctan, Aug 8, 2006
    #9
  10. Celcius

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Justus Lipsius writes:

    > The other thing is the doctoring of photographs. That is totally
    > unacceptable in reporting. (period)


    So it's unacceptable to mask faces, breasts, and genitals?

    --
    Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
    Mxsmanic, Aug 9, 2006
    #10
  11. Celcius

    Hebee Jeebes Guest

    Yes it is. Unless asked to do so by the person in question. We are talking
    news here people not porn. For example the prison abuse scandal that hit the
    US. Our news agencies and our government should NOT have blot out the
    pictures. I think seeing them without that would have created and even
    bigger problem for our lame ass president and his jackass henchmen. But, no
    they tamed it and so it didn't have the impact it should have.

    They did the same thing with the beheadings in Iraq. Had the video been
    shown in full and intact, more pressure would have been placed on our
    leaders. Instead there was nothing visual to offend American's. Most of
    which have never seen such a thing and so just hear about it had little
    impact. The un-educated mind just doesn't full render things like that. You
    have to see it, confront it for it to truly move and affect you in to doing
    something about it.

    R


    "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Justus Lipsius writes:
    >
    >> The other thing is the doctoring of photographs. That is totally
    >> unacceptable in reporting. (period)

    >
    > So it's unacceptable to mask faces, breasts, and genitals?
    >
    > --
    > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
    Hebee Jeebes, Aug 9, 2006
    #11
  12. Celcius

    cjcampbell Guest

    cjcampbell, Aug 9, 2006
    #12
  13. Celcius

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Justus Lipsius writes:
    >
    >> The other thing is the doctoring of photographs. That is totally
    >> unacceptable in reporting. (period)

    >
    > So it's unacceptable to mask faces, breasts, and genitals?
    >


    Yes, prepublication! The editors should be the ones to do this type of
    thing. A news photographer should submit only unedited images!
    Ron Hunter, Aug 9, 2006
    #13
  14. Celcius

    Ron Hunter Guest

    cjcampbell wrote:
    > Celcius wrote:
    >> Hi all!
    >>
    >> We've often talked about digitally "corrected" photography.
    >> I came across this BBC news this AM:
    >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5254838.stm

    >
    > He needed firing.
    >

    Yep, dishonest, is just that.
    Ron Hunter, Aug 9, 2006
    #14
  15. Celcius

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Ron Hunter writes:

    > Yes, prepublication! The editors should be the ones to do this type of
    > thing. A news photographer should submit only unedited images!


    If photographers must not doctor images, why is it okay for editors to
    do so? Either way, the result is a lie.

    --
    Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
    Mxsmanic, Aug 9, 2006
    #15
  16. Celcius

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Ron Hunter writes:
    >
    >> Yes, prepublication! The editors should be the ones to do this type of
    >> thing. A news photographer should submit only unedited images!

    >
    > If photographers must not doctor images, why is it okay for editors to
    > do so? Either way, the result is a lie.
    >


    It depends on how they are 'edited'. Cropping for space, enlarging for
    detail (or to avoid showing objectionable material, or even enhancing
    the edges to make a picture reproduce better is not dishonest. Changing
    the picture to indicate something patently false, or misleading, is
    dishonest, no matter at what point it is done.
    Ron Hunter, Aug 9, 2006
    #16
  17. Celcius

    cjcampbell Guest

    Mike wrote:
    > "Celcius" <> wrote in message
    > news:eba3l3$k6b$...
    > > Hi all!
    > >
    > > We've often talked about digitally "corrected" photography.
    > > I came across this BBC news this AM:
    > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5254838.stm
    > >
    > > Best regards to all,
    > >
    > > Marcel
    > >

    >
    > Reuters (and most reputable agencies) have a strict policy about this type
    > of thing and he's not the first to be caught out and fired. Won't be the
    > last either.


    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?
    cjcampbell, Aug 10, 2006
    #17
  18. Celcius

    Mxsmanic Guest

    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.

    --
    Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
    Mxsmanic, Aug 10, 2006
    #18
  19. Celcius

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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.
    >

    Sure it can, and usually is. Viewers are customers, and most vendors,
    whether it be a product, service, or 'experience' want to sell more,
    rather than less, and most customers don't want an unpleasant
    experience. I can watch CSI while eating supper, because I KNOW the
    scenes are fake. I don't watch much news because I know the scenes are
    NOT fake.
    Ron Hunter, Aug 10, 2006
    #19
  20. Celcius

    no_name Guest

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    > Ron Hunter writes:
    >
    >
    >>Yes, prepublication! The editors should be the ones to do this type of
    >>thing. A news photographer should submit only unedited images!

    >
    >
    > If photographers must not doctor images, why is it okay for editors to
    > do so? Either way, the result is a lie.
    >


    Who says it's ok for editors to "doctor" images? It's no more acceptable
    for a photo editor to change the content of an image than it is for
    the photographer to do so.

    Either way, IF the result is a lie, it's not acceptable practice.

    I'm still wondering why we haven't heard anything about the photo editor
    who accepted such crudely doctored images being disciplined.
    no_name, Aug 10, 2006
    #20
    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. Kevin

    Cannot get Reuters Site

    Kevin, Jan 17, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    463
    Kevin
    Jan 17, 2004
  2. Tarkus
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    423
    Tarkus
    Sep 16, 2003
  3. Tarkus
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    442
    Tarkus
    Sep 18, 2003
  4. barb
    Replies:
    104
    Views:
    1,672
  5. garywi

    Wireless Connection Drops, then connects, drops...

    garywi, Feb 12, 2009, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    653
    Robert L. \(MS-MVP\)
    Feb 12, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page