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.
>> To paraphrase Pink Floyd, "Mother, should I trust the government?"..."
The real question is
Should I trust "Mainstream media".
Add to this investiagte why Peter Arnett was fired from CNN a few years ago. Read what Harry Stein wrote in his Autobiography about stories he made up to make his political point.
This is not the government, it's the free press.
Which one is the original - this or this.
The consensus on the BBS I found these at was that both are touched. Go figure.
3.243F6A8885A308D313
That I bet a few photographers miss Stalin.
Google doesn't index user sigs, so stop trying to "Google Bomb" with them.
IMHO, that's too simplistic of a way to make a decision.
...and you're telling me that coverage of the news by the talking heads is pure fact and nothing else?
I bet some of the cameras being used by the photographers don't have "red eye" reduction. Should they be fired too? Won't the red dot make the person look angry?
C'mon folks, let's look at this more critically.
If you look closely, you'll see that the digital composition implies that the soldier was directing the civilian with the baby in his arms, implying that this soldier was somehow comforting, directing or otherwise assisting this distressed person.
The actual photos revels that the soldier's raised hand was either unseen by the civilian or directed to something else.
That's art, not reporting. That's the big deal.
The best way to do is to be.
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. -- ChaoticChaos
Fade into courtroom interior..
"Your honor, prosecution presents exhibit A. We took the liberty of touching up this photo. While it still represents the events that took place the day Mr. Chaos murdered his girlfriend, it doesn't make anything appear to have happened that didn't. It conveys the same thing."
"OBJECTION!!! Conjecture!"
"Sustained! Counsel, please approach the bench."
The news itself is horribly altered and biased, what makes this little Photoshop edit such a big deal?
This happens more often than you think. Hopefully not for journalistic photos, mind you. But advertisers modify pictures all the time. Or did you really think that models always have perfect skin? Thank you, smudge tool!
I recently did some work for a friend who is putting on a play (shameless plug, if you live in San Francisco, go see "Shirley Mental") and she had taken some publicity photos. Unfortunately, none of them were perfect, so she had me combine the background from one with actors in another, and in another case remove a third actor from a shot to more prominently feature two others.
For journalistic photos, though, it would be unethical. Oddly enough, simply cropping an unacceptable bit out of a photo would probably be considered okay with most papers. Adding things is a definite no-no.
I can understand how a journalist could forget that though, considering how easy it is to modify photos. In many cases, it wouldn't matter, but a newspaper simply can't afford to be seen as making things up. They can't have people questioning whether what they see in a paper is real or not.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"The original and re-touched photograph are conveying the same thing
That's not exactly true. Photographs can give different impressions of the same incident. I was listening to NPR yesterday, (I can't remember which show, so believe me or don't. I think it was The Conversation) and one of the callers used the photo as evidence of how cruel the US and British forces were. The comment went something like, "Look at the LA times picture of the soldier pointing his gun and yelling at children! It does look more like the guy is pointing his gun at the man carrying the child in the doctored photo. Innocent manipulation or not, the photo was used for propaganda.
I got an entirely different feeling.
The combined picture seems harsher. The impression that I got from the combined image: An Iraqi father who has concerns for his child being harshly rebuked by an American soldier. The impression is given that the American soldier is asserting his authority over the Iraqi.
Neither of the other images depict this conflict.
The difference is subtle, but IMHO significant.
— darco
Are you kidding? In the second original photo, the barrel of the gun is facing an Iraqi man carrying his child. In the modified picture, the barrel of the gun is facing safely away, and the soldier looks like he's closer to the vierwer.
If you have a copy of the mag sitting around, please look at the photo and tell me if you agree.
I find it sickening that a supposedly respectable publication would edit historical photographs for the sake of modern political correctness. We wouldn't want our young kids learning that, way back during the Depression, people smoked cigarettes, would we?
Oprah's head on Ann-Margret's body. It is from 1980 I think.
http://www.uturn.org/Fingering/opra.jpg
I disagree. Some alterations can and must be done, some are acceptable, some are questionable, and yet others are downright unethical.
Debayering the image that comes off the CCD is a must. Sharpening it a little to make up for the lack of resolution the CCD's color mask introduces is clearly in the acceptable category. Further sharpening to make the image come out in print better is (IMHO) in the questionable category. These are all mechanical alterations, done to the entire image, some of them even without the user's knowledge.
Then there's the manipulations that are intended to mislead. The ones that replace details, selectively obscure them or selectively emphasize them with an intent to deceive by not mentioning that they were manipulated. That's how I came to have a page of our local newspaper on my wall at work that features a 3 ft (1m) lotus bloom. Its also where the picture (I wish I had saved) that features two discrete planes of focus that could not possibly have been captured photographically (too many clues that indicate otherwise). Had these not been presented by an organization that attempted to tell me that they were accurate representations of reality, I would have let it pass.
As for pictures being held to a higher standard for their "direct integrity", they have never been truely accurate representations of what the photographer's eye saw. In fact, a lot of early photography was explicitly an intent to deceive the eye through manipulation. Holding photographs in such high regard as bastions of truth and integrity is probably a mistake.
Welcome to the net of 1000 lies. Upgrades are scheduled soon that should bring us to the 10,000 lies mark.
" The point is that _anything_ doctored cannot be considered news. If that became standard practice it would be so easy to abuse."
So if the photographer poses the subjects, she should be fired? I don't think theres much difference between telling people where to stand before you take the shot and splicing them together after you take it. The journalistic principles that you are describing went overboard once prime time news became a big revenue generator for TV stations.
Analog photos can be altered too. One is by setting lighting and degree of focusing. The NY Times Sunday magazine uses portrait photos with harsh lighting- wrinkles, acne scars, blush marks, become pronounced. This the opposite of "air brushing" or softening frequently done in yearbook and wedding photos. I find these harshened portraits interesting.
The color of photos can be changed too. "Fuji-izing" is brightening hues beyond reality. Home photographers think this makes better pictures. At least one major film vendor builds this into their film.
An interesting controversy about eight years ago was a NY Times magazine piece on OJ Simpson. Readers complained his cover photo was darker than reality, making look like an African menance.
"Models that appear in this magazine may have certain features enhanced or exagerated. The pictures in this magazine should be construed as fantasy imagery only."
The layout department for Sports Illustrated was on I think the "Best Damn Sports Show Period" saying that most of the swimsuit models legs are elongated and breast "bubbled" after the shoot with PowerBook G4s on spot and then further at headquarters. He made a joke saying that Niki Taylor was so short and they wanted her on a two page wide spread. So, they lengthened her legs. If she were real, she'd me Yao Ming's sister!
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
A war photo that is altered so the depiction is inaccurate is unacceptable on any scale.
IAADP (I am a Digital Photographer) and I see nothing wrong with the photo. I quite often combine elements of different photographs from a shoot to create the image I'm looking for. Often it is an image I see through the lens and try to capture but just miss due to the subject moving. That doesn't mean that what the photo shows never took place.
Imagine trying to take a photograph of two people sitting on a bench. You take one photograph just as a bird flys past and blocks the face of the person on the right. You take a second photograph just as a bus drives past the person on the left. The two subjects then get up and leave before you have a chance of a third photo. Now if I took the left hand side of the first photo and the right hand side of the second photo I could create a new image of two people sitting on a bench. Just because I didn't capture it in one photo doesn't mean it didn't happen.
In this instance you can clearly see what was happening in the two individual photos. The soldier is telling people to move in the first photo and the second photo shows them moving. By combining the images he the photographer has been able to show all that is happening in one shot. This does not mean the photo is not a true representation of what the photographer saw.
The thing is this. Once you show a different picture as news than the one that actually happened, you are representing something that never happened as news. Yes, the new image is a facsimile of what happened, and probably a darn good interpretation that conveys the message as well as the original, if not better than it. But it never existed.
Having worked for both USA Today and washingtonpost.com, I can tell you that know responsible news organization would tolerate this kind of behavior. Most have very explicit standing policies against digitally altering photos for publication with severe consequences (including termination) for violation of the policy.
While this seems a pretty clear cut violation, there is also some room for debate as to the proper role of Photoshop. Is cropping for presentation acceptable? Color correction? Graphical overlays (to point out characteristics of the photo or enhance the nformation value)? How about masking out someone who's permission you couldn't get for the photo?
Remember that the key asset of any news organization is the public's trust that they are reporting the "facts". While there is no real expectation of complete objectivity, altering the truth the fit your perspective will always be unacceptable. When you alter a photograph with the intent of changing it's meaning (even if it supports the other facts in the story), it erodes that trust.
In all honesty, this is the photographers fault. His real mistake was taking bad photos. His attempt to fix this created an even bigger mistake. I take a lot of photos, and learn from them. This is how you get better. You missed the shot, you get another. But you keep your eyes open for The Shot cause its going to be there. You learn to anticipate it. You see it, you get it, you've got it. And your good. My whole point is that the photographer made mistakes and is accountable for it. The fact is he tried to cover up his mistake and got caught. Suck it up and learn. I'm guessing he caught the before and after shots, and missed the middle shot that had what he was trying to compose. Of course no photographer wants to admit missing the shot and having his/her work made the laughing stock. So you doctor the photo. Here's my question to you though. If he's worked for them for this many years, how many other important photos has he doctored? It brings his whole history into play.
To use the insane words of Michael Moore The "doctored" photo used in publication is a view into a fictional word. And its much like Michael Moore's Columbine film where he takes a gun to the bank (they gave out certificates, not guns). I digress.
Point is that we all believe what we see as truth. While its true that a photograph is a split second of reality, we can still pull some meaning from the image.
Journalists misrepresent and spin the truth. We all know that, we all do that ourselves. Photojournalists do it too, but to manipulate a photograph to create a fake, or fictional, reality is worse than composing a shot. I trusted the image as truth, but that scene never existed.
It doesn't matter whether or not how the photo was manipulated. To adjust the scene to mean something positive or negative is irrelevant. The bottom line is that the view that we are trusting as real never happened, ever.
The line is very fine. Removing a powerline would be okay in one instance, but not in another.
"Let's just make the blood on these people that were killed a little more red..."
to paraphrase Pink Floyd, "Mother, should I trust the government?
This is not censorship in any way shape or form. The article makes it very clear that Times policy is that no photographs be altered. The Photographer should have been aware of this policy, and chose to ignore it. This is not a case of the government not liking what the photograph portrays and telling the newspaper not to print it. That would be censorship. Firing a photographer for violating policy is not.
However, even if the Times themselves had not liked what the altered image showed, and pulled the photograph whatever reason (it was unpatriotic, it portrayed soldiers in an unfavorable light, etc.) even that would not be censorship. It would be a private business deciding not to show a picture for their own reasons. I've noticed that many Slashdotters don't seem to understand that censorship is only when the government forces someone to stop saying something, printing something, etc. A private business can decide not to say something, or to fire an employee for saying things that they believe are damaging to their business, and be perfectly within their rights.
Still shouldn't trust the government though.
My user number is the sum of 4 squares.
"I prefer Fox over the ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN, because at least fox will put both sides on to argue their points, and not SLANT the news to the right as much as the left will SLANT the news to their extent."
l
LOL
http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/sources.htm
"I've been conservative all my life."
Now what's that mean? I'm a conservative too, but I believe in dialog, discussion and balanced policy.
i.e. no O'Reilly, and not the Republican party.
So I concede the point. The original, with the boy, is enhanced with some blurring and some burning in, and that's about it. Personally I think they did a pretty bad job of it, but that's just my opinion, and being a bad job doesn't make it a fake.
BTW the version without the boy given the same treatment is really obviously fake, with clear cloned/rubber stamped areas.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I don't think you understand what I meant. Tactically speaking, the soldier is in a neutral stance. metaphorically, it's like having the fire selector set to safety. his finger is out of the trigger guard and he is not exhibiting any sort of agressiveness. I think the best way to say it is that he is carrying his rifle. The rifle may be pointing but he is not pointing it. By comparison, the agent in the Elian photo had his weapon shouldered and was indeed pointing it (although even in that case, his pointed finger outside the trigger guard indicated quite a safe position, as well.)
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 not enforced at any newspaper. Often just cropping the image can completely change the meaning of the photograph. Also dodging, burning, red eye removal is sometimes required to get a "professional looking" photo. I think he crossed the line, and they did the right thing. But I wish it were done to creative croppers too, but when caught I bet most of them just get a slap on the wrist.
I hope Mr. Walski is picked up by another outfit with the lesson learned. If I had seen the modified photograph first I'd have felt cheated, but I don't think the meaning was changed by the editing. The originals told the same story, just less compactly, either of them with a tag line would have made a good news photograph.