Slashdot Mirror
Photographer Fired For Digitally Altering Photo
bewert writes "A sign of things to come? Is this kind of thing happening without anyone catching it? This short article notes that war photog Brian Walski was fired for combining elements from two photos to make one with 'better composition'.
Here is the 'Editor's Note' detailing the transgression. It's not really highlighted on their front page ;) I wonder how often this type of Photoshopping is done without anyone noticing it? To paraphrase Pink Floyd, "Mother, should I trust the government?"..." Another submitter points out an article examining digitally altered magazine covers. Slashdot has done several stories on unnoticeable digital alterations; here's 1, 2, 3 old stories to peruse.
Gee, I saw the 3 photographs and really don't see what the big deal is.
;-)
I can see firing the photographer if he was trying to make something appear to have happened that didn't. That's not the case here. The original and re-touched photograph are conveying the same thing. This is a tempest in a teapot.
I bet that famous photo of the sailor swapping spit with that woman after the war was over was probably Photoshopped too! I bet he was smelling his arm and they inserted her into the scene.
If this were an artistic piece for a magazine, no problem. Hair on Christie Brinkley's upper lip, no problem.
A war photo that is altered so the depiction is inaccurate is unacceptable on any scale. There is not concrete place you can draw a line and say "this much alteration is okay, but this much changes the story".
News commentary can be editorialized by any anchor. Pictures and video have alway been held in higher standing for thier direct integrity. This will rais equestions.
to paraphrase Pink Floyd, "Mother, should I trust the government?
While I respect your taste in music -- HUH? The guy was an LA Times photographer. Nowhere does he state that he has any affiliation with the government. The modification in question does not actually change much in the photo (I do NOT deny that it is wrong, just stating that it is not in any way propoganda IN THIS CASE). Don't blame the government for EVERYTHING.
In other news, Kudos to the times for catching the guy, and also for admitting and publishing the "error."
Photography is already biased enough depending on what you LEAVE OUT of the photo, or how you juxtapose certain elements, or use telephoto to change the size-distance ratio of objects. Use a long enough lens, and it looks like the kid running across the street is about to be bowled over by the tank, when in fact the tank is a block away.
Anything other than news photos and it's fair game.
Yes, the modifications were mostly compositional, but there is a *very good reason* for the L.A. Times banning the alteration of photos: because once you do it, the only difference between minor compositional alterations and ones that change the content in more significant ways is *just a matter of degree*. In other words, once you cross that threshold, the amount of alteration or significance of the alteration that is permissible is only a matter of judgement, a moving line in the sand. Banning such alteration of photographs outright shows good judgement by the publisher and demonstrates their commitment against the falsification of photographic evidence.
Of course, this does nothing to prevent completely staged photographs, but at least it's something.
I'm from Canada and don't get Fox News. I've rarely had a chance to hear or see Bill O'Reilly but on the few times I have, he's come across as a pompous ass - the type of smart guy who's just slightly more intelligent than the norm but closed to the possibility that there are many more people smarter than him. I remember seeing him in a "debate" and he seemed to think that the best way to win it was by stifling any opportunity for the other side to get a word in. I also got a chance to watch Fox News while on vacation and it was a laugh. It was so blatantly tabloid-ish that it was actually humourous. So my question is, why do so many Americans seem to treat O'Reilly like he's an intellectual genius and Fox like it's a suitable replacement for PBS?
I think the real problem with the unannounced altering of photos is that it has the ability to alter the meaning of a situation. I'm somewhat amazed at any discussion that argues that this is alright to do in any way, such as when the alteration does not change the fundamental nature of the shot.
The danger in allowing such discussion to breed is that it opens photographs to subjectivity. The editors alter photos to make them more dramatic, create more of an impact. But they are forging an image that did not exist in reality!
Altering photographs without providing a notice to the viewers allows the editors to become part of the story, enhancing and molding it, providing their own subliminal opinion, rather than reporting on it and allowing the reader to make up their own judgement. It's my opinion that media opinion and prejudice is already pervasive in news reporting worldwide, not just in the U.S. media.
We do not need any more opinions in our news, especially when those opinions are disguised as fact. If the situation wasn't dramatic enough, then it doesn't deserve to be 'pumped up' for our modern senses.
Almost all commercial photography is touched up in some way. Almost any stripmall photography place will touch up photographs to remove skin blemishes and artifacts in the picture, for a price. However, there is a big difference between altering a model pose where you're buying the perfect look, and a news photo where you're buying (supposively) unbiased fact.
A local newspaper had a similar problem with this a few years back. They were doing a story on teenage drug use in schools and used as a picture, the photograph of a girl bent over into her locker, snorting something. The photograph was a posed one, and was identified as such in the fine print of the article, but enough people got outraged, thinking that it was so prevalant that a roving news crew was able to catch such an event, taking place so casually. This gave the impression of the problem seeming worse than it actually was.
However, for news organizations, if they're going to modify images, make it obvious. Nobody gets upset about a collage mix of multiple images to represent a theme. But if the resulting image is represented as a single snapshot in time, you start to cross ethical boundaries.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Rember O'Reilly made his name on inside edition, a tabloid news program. This is why Fox another tabloid news outlet loves him. No one thinks hes a intellectual hes just the clown of the moment, and any one watching Fox news has probably never heard of PBS let alone watched it.
As a former journalism student and someone who has been in print a few times in High School and College, I think I can say what part of the Big Deal is.
Journalism is supposed to be accurate and unbiased. In practice this rarely happens, but the theory is there. The paper has a policy forbidding the modifying of photos, and they enforce it.
It's similar to the honor code many schools use. Cheating only hurts the student in the long run, but it can still get them kicked out of the school.
The point is the moral and ethical code. Journalists have a moral imperative to report the truth, and any modification, any stretching of the truth is a step down a slippery slope towards outright lies and falsehoods.
The photographer was fired for good reason. A modified photo is fine as a piece of "art" but as journalism it brings the entire publication's integrity and honesty into question.
I could go on, but my hope is that the majority of the people reading this thread realize that what the photographer did was a violation. It's not like photoshopping a playboy shoot to remove a pimple. This is falsifying the news. It's a small fake, a minor tweak, but it's still presenting falsehood as reality.
And before you make a wise ass reply about the fallacy of journalistic integrity in the real world, keep in mind, I did say "In practice this rarely happens".
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
If anything, the altered photo is propaganda for the military, not those opposing the war. The real picture on the right shows a soldier seemingly pointing a machine gun of some kind at a man carrying a young child. The real picture on the left shows the gun pointing over the heads of people sitting down but also shows the soldier motioning the man with child to sit down just as the man starts to stand up or approach the soldier. The fake picture shows him motioning the man (now standing with child in arms) to sit down; the gun is pointed away from the child and the soldier is motioning the man to sit down.
If they had used the real photo on the right, it would be a picture of an American soldier pointing a gun at a man carrying his child. It is vaguely reminiscent of the photo of the guy pointing a gun at Elian Gonzales when the took him from Florida in the sense that it shows one of our boys pointing a gun at a young child.
The altered photo shows the soldier slightly more relaxed, the gun isn't pointed at anyone and the child is not in immediate harm at all.
It is subtle, I'll grant you that, but the original could have been much better propaganda for the anti-war crowd.
If the gun were pointing at the man and kid, you would be seeing the back end of it, not the side. Guns can't shoot out of the side. Just letting you know. Neither picture has the gun pointed at anyone.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
The soldier also appears larger and more prominent in the altered photo. In the first original it looks like the Iraqis don't listen or maybe disobey him. The altered photo OTOH shows the soldier more "in control". Pretty subtle really, but it changes the mood of the picture. I wonder what the motivation of the photographer was.
Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
Sorry, a photograph, as in silver nitrate can be manipulated in the dark-room so why is anyone suprised about digital manipulation. The only difference is the process is faster and less smelly.
As regards journalisitic integrity, I'm sorry but there is none. Most journalists give the reports that their employers want, i.e. "Is there anyone here who has been raped who speaks English?". Of course they only tell the truth but it is a keyhole view of the truth. Both the original photo and the presentation can change the perceived meaning 100%.
--maybe not, but just in case, this is for the people here in other countries who might think it's all lock step goose steppers here based on those phony polls they run. I'm a "constitutionalist" now, well, call myself that, because those goons running the political show have sullied the term "conservative", I have been one for 4 decades (close) now, the difference is, I don't believe in murder, theft and crooked international business intrigue as a means to an end like the goons are doing now. Bill O'Reilly and goofballs like Michael Savage and gasbag Rush to psyops Limbaugh aren't real classic american conservatives. They are dangerous huckstering fascists, big time wrestling comes to news and commentary, paid off goons. They are part of whipping up the war and "terror" hysteria now in anticipation of the creation of the new Brownshirts, version 2.0., to go along with Patriot Act and Homeland Security and whatnot.
It's a junta, so I'll just call it that. Junta. And the brownshirts are coming, inevitable now.
The new (sorta) term for them is "neoconservative". That is too polite a term, IMO. I prefer fascist goons. Lying Thugs is good too. Real US conservatives are much more inclined to be isolationists/non interventionists when it comes to foreign military adventures, it's just now, with neocon fascists "in power" in the administration, they have hijacked the term "conservative". And there's a large percentage of the population, not a majority by any means but still large, who don't have much public voice, but are both conservative, patriotic, non war mongering, and aren't faked out by those goons, they just aren't in any leadership positions in the R party because they aren't crooks, and they certainly are in the minority in the mainstream US broadcast media, which now is a blend of neocon and naieve-brand liberalism. Sad but true. There is no "classical" Liberalism (which is a decent philosophy, more similar to what is called Libertarianism now) nor Old Fashioned conservatism or "paleoconservativism" (again, decent, different but still decent, tending to more protectionism,less "foreign entanglements", much smaller government, etc) represented, except mostly on the net and on shortwave and on forums.
With that said,politics aside, the photo altering story is a good headsup, along with the news anchors using phony backdrops and other sorts of digital altering techniques. Remember the bushgoon puppet-in-chief in front of the phony backdrop painted to look like "made in america" crates of product? That was another photo/video propaganda psyops move. I imagine some arabic sites and europaen sites are doing similar, too, it's just too easy to fake stuff now.
What's the quote? "In war, the truth is the first victim"
The photos are starting to be fake, the text has been highly altered and spun, constantly. All you need to do is use google news, pick any breaking story, look at a half dozen different versions of it from around the world. Altering just a few words and adding in a few choice trigger buzz words can spin the same exact story in several different directions. Example, this works both ways, from either side, just some examples on how this war gets reported: The "enemy" doesn't have "soldiers" they have "terrorists". The "badguys" are cheating and doing sneaky things that are "warcrimes", the "good guys" use special operations or commando techniques and pull off "specatacular and brave and daring raids".
And stuff like that there.
When I am reading the "war news" now, I take the very highs and the very lows from all the sources, and throw them away, then average the middle, that is most likely the closest to any sort of "truth" being reported.
The second one (without the boy) is obviously faked, and rather poorly. Some obvious indications:
Look at the grassline underneath the tank. See the regular vertical bands on the concrete wall just above the grass and below the tank. Those lines fall in direct line with both the blocky pattern of the grass as well as small brighter higlights on the underneath side of the tank (look closely). Obviously stamping the same pattern across the image, but the stamp includes the grass, the wall, and part of the tank; a dead giveaway.
On the front edge of the tank where the transition is to the underneath side there is a row of attached square reactive plate armor. Notice that above each is what looks like a horizontal hinge. Now on the second image those plates which fall behind where the boy should be have no attachment "hinge". And there are two out of place half-width plates where all other plates are more nearly square. Also the center outer block is missing...it would seem a lot easier to take this out than to put it in.
Now look at the ground which lies behind where the boy's legs would be. There is a very definite line-pattern there that looks sort of like tread marks, but is too regular. It certainly doesn't match the texture of the rest of the dirt. Also at the angle in which the light is shining any horizontal tread marks, if there, should be pratically invisible. And you can also see the same block repeated several times...way to regular to be real.
As for the first image, it's not as clearly a fake as the second. But there are small indications which look like some attempt was made to burn (lighten) parts of the tank underside, perhaps to provide more contrast? As another reader pointed out, the boy's empty hand has an unusual lightness to it as if a brush was swiped across it. Also the darker halo around the boy traces his outline fairly well, but especially under his armpit there is a clear circular curve where you can almost tell the exact brush size that had been used. Of course film optics can also produce this halo-like effect in certain light, so it's not clear cut.
Of course this begs the question (if my analysis is correct), the second image where the boy was removed is definitely unethical for news reports. But is it unethical to do minor corrections such as white balancing, darking or lightening incorrect exposures, etc as maybe was been done to the first?
A picture within a news publication is news. Within the context of fact-reporting journalism, we should be able to expect that all representations are factual and undoctored. Outside of that realm (in artistic / and other subjective contexts), we know we can't have that expectation.
There are already some very subjective elements in news reporting and it doesn't build our diminishing trust in the media when we can no longer expect images to be accurate and undoctored.
It wouldn't upset my news gathering experience in the least if "MS"NBC, CNN, ABC, Fox, Al Jazeera, and the rest of their ilk would just cut all the adjectives from their stories completely and leave me with facts; objective reporting. It would take less time to get caught up on current events, and let me come to my own conclusions about how I feel about what's being reported.
I agree that in this case, the changes are pretty trivial and that firing the reporter is pretty extreme, but anything not altered from it's original visual depiction is still not fact. People are probably overreacting because there's so damn much spin in our world these days...
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
Yeah, but what worries me is the large number of people who forget to take a grain of salt with whatever zany conspiracies they hear newscasters speak of on tv. Especially here in the US where so many people just think if something was said on CNN/Fox News/etc then it must be true.
See http://king.fn.com.au/~srn/tank_diff.jpg one image minus the other. There's clearly been some work done around the boy, which indicates he was removed and some blending done to cover the gap.
The shadows around his feet (of him) are unchanged in the shot without him, which implies also that he was in the original shot.