Reuters sacks Photographer for manipulation

5uspect

Just heard that the Reuters News Agency has removed all the photos from freelance photographer for manipulation his photos of the Israeli attacks on Lebanon. They're pretty obviously and poorly photoshopped. I was wondering what people thought about manipulation in photojournalism in general. Is it okay to play with an image a bit or should the photos be kept unedited? And do you think such manipulation is widespread but better hidden?

Personally I have no problem with adjustments like levels corrections etc that slightly affect the image globally to improve clarity colour etc, hovever this guy seriously crossed the line (i think he is from Lebanon so i can see his motivation) by adding false information.

I'll look for better versions of the offending shots but there are some here
and more info here

Fajitas!

Seen this a similar case to this a few weeks back. As posted by photojournalists on sportsshooter.net, if we are to show things as we see them, are we to use HDR instantly? One for the sky, one for the subject? Otherwise, we're not portraying reality. Similarly, another comment was that every time we adjust our apertures and shutter speeds, iso's and white balance, we're making an artistic judgment that affects the photograph in question. Making a sky blue (as was the problem in the previous case I saw), or in this case, merely increasing the levels... I know my point is all over the place, but hopefully you'll get it!

5uspect

Yeah I think I get your point!

About adjusting the ISO, aperture etc, you're not adding information to the image as it appears to you. Background blur may reduce information in the scene but no more than a crop or pointing your camera somewhere else. Also HDR is the original image data. The photographer is showing us something he wants us to see, something that hasn't created. Clone painting in extra smoke or decoy flares is adding information that isn't there.

Placebo

firstly that is very badly photoshopped, secondly i agree with him being sacked, i despise alot of photos on flickr etc which are clearly manipulated, its not really photography if youre changing the color of the sky and/or removing a car in the background, its an art itself, wait for the car to go, wait for the skys color to change.
I myself have changed the hue in one or 2 of my photos but never to put it on public display. I should be smart enough to use color filters.
at the same time, i dont mind Brightness and contrast adjusments.

DotOrg

Placebo wrote:

if youre changing the color of the sky and/or removing a car in the background, its an art itself, wait for the car to go, wait for the skys color to change

for a lot of photographers we don't have that time, sometimes photographers have deadlines.

changing an image depends on the use of the image, if it's to report news then obviously things shouldn't be added or taken away which affect the story the shot is telling.

if a photo is being used as a piece of art, merely to create a mood or atmosphere then i wouldn't put any limits on what you do to it

Placebo

but then its not photography, its just a piece youve made. it should rather be in deviant art than flickr.
It just seems like fooling people [to me] , if i search for a a camera and see unreal colors from its photos, id like to go for it, but knowing half the picture have been pitched up by photoshop, is truley misleading.
but then again i agree with timelines etc but going back to the subject, thats a serious matter as its making the destruction look worse, which would politicaly lead to bigger trouble.

5uspect

Mild fiddleing in photoshop (especially in RAW) is just an extension of what a DSLR does anyway. Placebo do you use film by any chance?! I personally quite enjoy messing about with photoshop and I agree is it more deviant art than flickr but often the boundaries are blurred.

DotOrg, as a pro what limits would you place on the level of doctoring in your work? Would you be more likely to resort to photoshop if you felt your skills were good enough to make a photo look good without having to go and reshoot?

Placebo

im analog all the way, for now anyway.
I do agree, photoshop would bring a photo to the next level and saves re-photoshoots etc but if a photographer was to have a photo framed up in a gallery, i rather it be 100% original. Just an opinion.

Fajitas!

Placebo wrote:

It just seems like fooling people [to me] , if i search for a a camera and see unreal colors from its photos, id like to go for it, but knowing half the picture have been pitched up by photoshop, is truley misleading.

But what about film? Every type of film gives a different effect. B&W is completly false, if one thinks about it. High grain films too. In fact, take the same pic with 10 different types of film. Each one will have its own properties that take it away from reality. And that's just the film. You've also got the developing chemicals. Different chem's give different hues etc.

Photography can and is used as an artform, I don't see why it should only be used on DeviantArt, nor visa versa!

(I'm not actually being narky or aggressive for the record )

If you look at the photos you posted earlier, you can see different hues in the latter colour images, I presume, which comes from the film you used, and liek the amount of contrast used in your b&w's was up to your film choice.

And finally, with digital photography, post processing is a standard. VERY rarely could you use an image directly out of a digital SLR. I mean, more time it's just simple curves/colour balance, maybe something else. But it really is a necessity (sp?).

Placebo

well i didnt mean to get pedantic at an extreme level, as far as my view goes, its that if you can manipulate your image then you can photoshop an image into a fake polaroid border, hue it to green/blue and call yourself mr class.
Photos i posted were taken over a few months with different film, but i get your point. Art is Art i guess.

Fajitas!

I'm not trying to be pedantic, I'm just saying that every photography has an artistic and almost uncontrollable influence, yadda yadda yadda.

What I pointed out above was just an example of how variable photography is...(and detached from reality that it can be)

Placebo

sorry i meant my argument was getting pedantic, not the point you made.

Fajitas!

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=21220

I'd advise a read of that. Excellent points brought up on both sides of the argument, by professional photographers.

5uspect

Fajitas! wrote:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=21220

I'd advise a read of that. Excellent points brought up on both sides of the argument, by professional photographers.

Excellent discussion thanks for pointing it out. I still feel that manipulating the image globally through levels, saturation, curves etc is perfectly okay, but maybe the photographer should remind anyone who is going to publish it that it has been altered and also show the original automatically produced by the camera's built in manipulation. (I guess this becomes a bit easier with camera RAW since you have more or less full control over this automated process and can sit infront of a screen with an editor). Although you can argue that such manipulation is not really "doctoring" its probably good to be open about the process. At least that way the clone painters can't claim thet didn't know any better.

Fajitas!

Yep, I found the post on Sports Shooter really good. Gives agreat insight, especially to what the REALLY high end pro's think (Bear in mind there's a (IIRC) pretty high fee to even post there)

At the end of the day, your always best to be honest about your images. I mean, if someone asks me to see an original image, I have no qualms about showing them.

@Placebo, I think my argument was equally pedantic

DotOrg

5uspect wrote:

DotOrg, as a pro what limits would you place on the level of doctoring in your work? Would you be more likely to resort to photoshop if you felt your skills were good enough to make a photo look good without having to go and reshoot?

i don't place any limits on what i do to photos. if i'm doing documentary photos i won't clone things out or move items but in artwork for cd covers, promotional photoshoots i'm creating something to show a mood or atmosphere,something that will be used on posters which has the purpose of catching attention of people looking at them. i'm not trying to fool anyone, i'm just about the business of creating something that looks good

Valentia

DotOrg on #5 makes my point succintly.

Shrimp

It is necessary to bump the contrast when photos are taken with pro cams, as they are processed within the camera in a very bland way. Colours usually come out muted. Photos on pro cams are expected to be edited. As for cloning thats not right in photojournalism. Perhaps cloning out lens dust or rain on the lens, then maybe, cos that doesn't change what happened. However, no cloning would be better.

Valentia

Agreed Shrimp.

Chochese

Shrimp wrote:

It is necessary to bump the contrast when photos are taken with pro cams, as they are processed within the camera in a very bland way. Colours usually come out muted. Photos on pro cams are expected to be edited.

I must disagree. You can set different paramaters in the camera to handle colour and tone in different ways. bump them up to the last and you can get some good colours straight from the unit.

and I'm sorry, but saying that photos on pro cams are expected to be edited is akin to talking through your hoop.

mtracey

What an idiot that guy was. Its soooo obvious.

5uspect

Chochese wrote:

and I'm sorry, but saying that photos on pro cams are expected to be edited is akin to talking through your hoop.

If you shoot in RAW and then open the RAW settings on your PC and select all the automatic settings then you're just doing what the camera does to the data from the sensor by default.

Why should adjusting this option if off limits? Should photographers be allowed to only shoot in full auto lenses and all? Adjusting white balance, contrast etc afterwards is only turning this preprogramed part of digital photography into part of taking a fully manual digital picture.

I do agree that you can get nice results just shooting on full auto but thats no more photography than just giving the score in sports journalism.