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.

Comments

Here is a quick image analysis quiz

[apankrat]

Which one is the original - this or this.

The consensus on the BBS I found these at was that both are touched. Go figure.

Re:Here is a quick image analysis quiz

[SerialHistorian]

They are both touched. In the msnbc.com one, you can see that the front underside of the tank has been retouched using the 'rubber stamp' tool. I'm not sure what's been removed, but it might be a piece of equipment. It seems that the boy was genuinely there, though. The shadows match. In the milanet.ie one, the boy has been removed. You can tell because the armored plates and cables that are along the front of the tank don't match up anymore. Additionally, there is some false shadowing on the underside of the gun barrel that I can't explain. I'm not sure that's a US tank, by the way.

Re:What's the big deal?

[ChaoticChaos]

IMHO, that's too simplistic of a way to make a decision.

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? ...and you're telling me that coverage of the news by the talking heads is pure fact and nothing else?

C'mon folks, let's look at this more critically.

Re:What's the big deal?

[PetiePooo]

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."

I used to work in pre-press

[spun]

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.

Another example from Time

[pclminion]

Look at Time magazine from last week (the one with the big "Gulf War II" on the cover). Flip open to somewhere in the middle, where they have a section on various historical events of the 20th century. One of the article sections shows a photograph of a woman sitting in front of a medical tent during the Depression. The woman has her hand near her face, held in a position as if she were holding a cigarette. However, the cigarette is nowhere to be found. It has been removed from the photo.

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?

Note on staff lists of Cosmopolitan Magazine ....

[adzoox]

There used to a note on the "staff listings" page inside every Cosmoplitan Magazine.

"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!