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.
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."
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
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?
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.
"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
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.
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..."