| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
When or if general news pic manipulation okay
Tom Ervin, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Palm Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 10:07 AM on 07.21.08 |
| ->> Can anyone tell me when or if general news picture (post production) manipulation is okay (outside the general toning cropping of the picture)? And is lens baby acceptable for a general news pic and is that manipulation? |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
 |
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 10:16 AM on 07.21.08 |
| ->> tom, no. |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
 |
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 10:25 AM on 07.21.08 |
| ->> NEVER at my paper! |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 10:33 AM on 07.21.08 |
| ->> Neither are acceptable. |
|
Mike Shepherd, Photographer
 |
Wichita | KS | USA | Posted: 10:34 AM on 07.21.08 |
| ->> Are we having this discussion again? |
|
Wesley R. Bush, Photographer
 |
Nashville | TN | U.S. | Posted: 10:50 AM on 07.21.08 |
| ->> I think it CAN be used as long as there is an explanation as to the use of a tilt/shift lens creating the image. For example, some of Vincent's photos from the sky. |
|
Andrew Dolph, Photographer
 |
Medina | OH | USA | Posted: 10:52 AM on 07.21.08 |
->> Tom,
Is your posting in reference to your own work, or the work of another photographer? Would you care to be specific? |
|
Walter Calahan, Photographer
 |
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 10:57 AM on 07.21.08 |
->> A lens baby usage is only allowed if your missile misfires when demonstrating to the world that your missile is long, big and powerful.
Other than that, no.
Vincent's and David Burnett shift/tilt usage is on feature images, not general news. |
|
Wesley R. Bush, Photographer
|
Nashville | TN | U.S. | Posted: 11:22 AM on 07.21.08 |
| ->> Feature, general news. A feature story is a general news story with more adjectives. ;) |
|
Tom Ervin, Photographer, Assistant
|
Palm Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 11:26 AM on 07.21.08 |
->> On the front page of SportsShooter has a picture. The picture is of a funeral. In very specific areas of the picture are out of focus.
Some areas close to the subject are out of focus while other areas away from the subject are sharp. At the same time the background and subject are in focus
I hope Brooks can enlighten me how this effect can be obtained with a normal wide angle.
When a unfamiliar technique is presented on the front page of SportsShooter I think the members need to know how the technique is achieved. |
|
Aaron Rhoads, Photographer
 |
McComb | MS | USA | Posted: 11:27 AM on 07.21.08 |
->> Would the "shift/tilt usage" work when I'm shooting photos of little toy soldiers/baseball players or model cars on a paper mache field/street?
or would that be redundant? |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 11:36 AM on 07.21.08 |
| ->> don't know why we keep having to go over this again and again. the use of a lens baby or tilt shift is fine for features or a portrait but is NOT okay for a news assignment. is this really so hard to understand? |
|
Mike Carlson, Photographer
 |
Bayonet Point | FL | USA | Posted: 11:41 AM on 07.21.08 |
->> Tom, the photographer is an SS member:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=4217
I certainly hope you contacted him directly before calling him out on the form...unless, of course, you enjoy padding your feedback stats?
(Your second post on this thread asked for technique info, your opening post called it manipulation). |
|
Tom Ervin, Photographer, Assistant
|
Palm Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 12:00 PM on 07.21.08 |
->> Hi Chuck
Why am I going over and over again?
It seems that SportsShooter and Brooks are presenting a general news picture on the SportsShooter front page with a technique that shouldn't be used for a general news picture. It gives the perception that both are advocating a technique that is not acceptable in many newsrooms
Am I wrong for calling out SportsShooter and Brooks? ( That is if such a technique is being used.) |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 12:32 PM on 07.21.08 |
->> Tom, the photo in question is for a print sale that the school is having.
Do you know if it ran in an editorial content? Maybe Matthew already had the shot for his assignment and was shooting for himself at the time, or maybe the entire shoot was for himself.
I'm going to agree with Mike Carlson, this should have been handled off board. |
|
Tom Ervin, Photographer, Assistant
|
Palm Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 12:38 PM on 07.21.08 |
->> Mike I'm not calling out the photographer as much as the teaching institution and SS. And come think about it I should of included ZUMA. The story and caption left out very important information that should of been present.
No I didn't call him before the post.
Mike TODAY I have to say I wasn't thinking about padding the stats. |
|
Grant Morris, Photographer
|
Nashua | NH | USA | Posted: 12:39 PM on 07.21.08 |
->> Seriously. The photographer used a tilt shift lens to shoot something different. Is that affecting the overall content of the photograph? no. In a way, he only used depth of field to further the effectiveness of the image. Just like we all do on a normal basis. If it's not ethiclly correct, then why are we using large aperature lenses like 50 f1.2. A similar affect is caused by the narrow DOF. Ethiclly the photographer could be called into question if he added camera blur in post and then went back over the subjects faces with the history brush...but he didn't. I know this for a fact because the photographer is a my best friend.
Don't let this last statement conflict you, if he was in ethical wrongdoing, I would be the first to call him out on it. However, there's nothing wrong with this. Lensbaby on the other hand....well I wont get started on that. |
|
Matthew Williams, Photographer
 |
Nashville | TN | USA | Posted: 1:03 PM on 07.21.08 |
->> I have been holding my tongue for months and this seems like a good a time as any to say how ridiculous this entire site has become. The time has come to grow up a little bit I think. Instead of focusing on the imagery, what it says, how it makes the viewer feel, the moment, the only thing I hear on this board is so and so did this or that.
I am not going to sit here and defend an image I shot when I haven't received a single email as to what the image was used for or if I achieved this affect in photoshop or with a lensbaby (i did not by the way), was it for a gallery show, magazine, newspaper, personal project, etc.? There's a big difference, even from newspaper to newspaper how and when a picture is deemed ethical.
I also am not going to sit here and argue with chuck who thinks that it's ok to do certain things to feature photos but not general news photos because it seems like he's making up his own rules and has all the answers at this point. The bottom line is that this site has become a community of finger pointers and is something that has become just plain annoying. So, if you want to have a conversation about the image or the ethical differences between using a Tilt Shift or shooting at f 1.2, or possibly shooting for an outlet other than a small town newspaper shoot me an email. |
|
Walter Calahan, Photographer
|
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 1:32 PM on 07.21.08 |
->> Why would a photojournalist use a deliberate optical distortion to portray the news?
Would John McCain's 'Straight Talk Express' use a lens baby or shift/tilt to visually explain his political opinion of world affairs in a Power Point presentation?
See Matthew, all the finger pointers can't hold their tongues 'cause they are using their fingers to point.
I for one have never stood or sat for this. Unfortunately the funny bone that occupies the space where my brain should be takes over my fingers, and I start typing dribble that makes me laugh about all these small world matters.
OK, so I'm going back to finish the new hardwood floor I'm installing in our guest bedroom. It's looking very nice. I think when I'm done, I'll make a picture of the room with my 4x5 using all the requisite shifts and tilts to making it architecturally correct on the ground glass. Then I'll walk my dogs. To them it is the most important thing in life to do.
But that's them. I'd rather see President Robert Mugabe removed from office. Far more important than f/1.2 or lens babies. |
|
Manuello Paganelli, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 2:03 PM on 07.21.08 |
->> Mike Carlson I dont think that he was calling Matthew's out or that was his intension. He just wanted to know what is or is not ok to do and then on his next message wanted to know how was done.
Any time a photo shows up in any forum with strong news references then is OK to ask tech and ethical questions.
That said, the casket image is strong with or without any effects. IT speaks on its own and that is what matters the most. Personally is a powerful image and executed well. Why be so purist with minor details?
No every image nor the moment when it was taken is the same.
One thing is adding extra missiles up in the air like Iran did or having five B52 flying over Germany and the next morning the NYTimes shows 200 of those flying fortress on its front page.
In the old days plenty of photos would had the borders out of focus or the focus would shift in some parts of the image yet I dont think that was a huge deal.
I also remember, before my paper replaced them all with top Leica enlargers, printing some of my news photos at the Chattanooga Times in an old Beseler enlarger. Folks you know about Beselers.
Save for the main center of the photo and where the people were, other parts were totally out of focus.
Again, nobody complained them. Now we got photoshop, lensbaby + other sources and able to create that effect and we call it manipulation. So yes there is not need to go over board with this.
More 2 Come
http://www.ManuelloPaganelli.com |
|
Rich Cruse, Photographer
 |
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 2:09 PM on 07.21.08 |
| ->> Accuracy is most important with news photos-period. |
|
Tom Ervin, Photographer, Assistant
|
Palm Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 2:16 PM on 07.21.08 |
->> This is my last post on this subject because I have a habit of going on and on and on.
Matthew you are a very good photographer but you don't need anyone to tell you that. So keep cool.
Today I feel the pressure to shoot differently that 10 years ago was a no no. Not just by me but the general journalism atmosphere back then.
I'm still keeping my ground but it's becoming harder.
New technology, clients, publications, educational institutions, and the public keep on drawing the questionable line fainter and fainter. Someday the line might disappear. When that line disappears I will probably disappear as PJ and try something new.
But Walter is right.
Sweet Jesus I got to go to work ! |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 2:45 PM on 07.21.08 |
| ->> matthew, I am a little unclear as to where you are coming from. first, I don't "make up my own rules". anyone who knows me knows I don't do that. secondly...obviously in your inexperience you didn't understand what I meant by "feature" photos...I don't mean stand alone, found feature photos...those come under the same ethics guidelines aa a news photo in my book, I'm talking about something like an illustration for the features section of the paper. I have never said I have all the answers. I state my opinion. you can either accept it (as some do) or not. if you truly feel "the site" has become ridiculous because of "finger pointing" doesn't that set of any kind of warning bell in your head? I don't know what your photo was shot for and it really doesn't matter. the problem isn't with the folks who ask you the question it lies with you. as manuello said the photo was fine without whatever gadgetry you used to manipulate it. maybe, just maybe fingers won't be pointed and tongues won't wag if you don't give them ammunition in the first place. think about it. |
|
Mark Turner, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Ventura | Ca | USA | Posted: 2:59 PM on 07.21.08 |
->> This image was shot for a photo essay. I have seen Matthew tone this in person, and I have never, nor has anyone else questioned the ethics of it. Sure if Matt worked at a paper that did not allow this sort of distortion it would be unethical, but he did not.
So how about everyone stops stepping on each other's toes.
Go to the Top 20 show, support the Brooks NPPA. If anything you can take a look at this photo in person, it's beautiful. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
 |
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 3:08 PM on 07.21.08 |
->> Would any sane person believe that there was a real-life drop-out in focus across such a short distance? Everybody viewing the image understands that what they are seeing is a visual affectation by the photographer.
Endless discussions over every possible technique reminds me of my nine-year-olds asking me micro-detailed questions about what they can and cannot do ("Can I hit my sister if she throws yellow paint on me? How about blue paint?")
Digital ethics are simple: Do not mislead.
--Mark |
|
Peter Grigsby, Photographer
|
Sacramento | CA | USA | Posted: 10:52 PM on 07.21.08 |
->> There are some things that should just be left alone. Quit calling out journalists who burn down the corners on their images, or maybe go a little heavy on the contrast...........OMG! That image was shot with a tilt shift or a lens baby---Get a rope. Ha.....quit being ridiculous. You have no argument, especially when the New York Times runs um consistently. I would rather look at a true moment shot through tilt shift, than a paper hand puppet any day. Isn't it about the moment--non altered content and beauty? Who are you to say an image is void just because the photographer is more artistic than you are.
Journalism is changing. The rules are evolving along with the medium. Open your eyes and appreciate the beauty for what it is--don't fear the change. Adapt to it. It is going to take a lot more change than this to bring journalism back to where it needs to be--Telling the truth, being innovative, interesting and creative........a few burned corners are the least of our worries.
Why waste time on throwing stones at people on the same team as you for mundane reasons? Were you a swimmer? Or a golfer? Maybe a bowler? Instead lets continue to work together, have a positive influence, and passionately challenge the system. Maybe papers are dying because no one believes you anymore. Our power as an industry is in our numbers and our influence. We are the few members of society trusted with the task of freezing time--capturing moments too beautiful, ugly, sad, just, unjust, influential, unique or tragic to go unnoticed. Lets focus on doing our job--educating the masses.......we all have a lot to learn. |
|
Derrick den Hollander, Photographer
|
Melbourne | VIC | AUSTRALIA | Posted: 11:18 PM on 07.21.08 |
| ->> I am soooo going to save myself $25 next year. |
|
Rich Cruse, Photographer
|
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 12:22 AM on 07.22.08 |
->> I found this on the web about a photo competition.
"Photojournalism Rules
The rules for the Photojournalism competition are the same as set out by the Photographic Society of America
Photojournalism entries shall consist of pictures or sequences with informative content and emotional impact, including human interest, documentary and spot news. The journalistic value of the photograph shall be considered over pictorial quality. In the interest of credibility, photographs which misrepresent the truth, such as manipulation to alter the subject matter, or situations which are set up for the purpose of photography, are unacceptable in Photojournalism competition.
No elements may be moved, cloned, added, deleted, rearranged, combined or changed in any way that affects the integrity of the image content. No manipulation or modification is permitted except resizing, cropping, selective lightening or darkening, and restoration of original color of the scene. No special effect filters can be added or applied either before or after image creation, and any sharpening must appear natural.
Print, slide, or digital sequences may be entered by placing more than one picture in a single image." |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 12:59 AM on 07.22.08 |
->> "Why waste time on throwing stones at people on the same team as you for mundane reasons?"
Judging by a lot of T.E.'s threads; he's not really on the same team (let alone wavelength) as the rest of us. His current "huh" total:
Messages Posted 433
Category Percentage Number
Huh? 59.19% 364
So approximately 84.06% of the time, at least one person has no idea what he's talking about. |
|
Tom Ervin, Photographer, Assistant
|
Palm Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 7:38 AM on 07.22.08 |
->> Well bad habits are hard to break. I thought i was done.
Thomas actually the numbers are better than I thought.
But I did look up "huh" on my MAC
dictionary This is what is said...exclamation used to express scorn, anger, disbelief, surprise, or amusement .....It doesn't mention anything about your definition of "huh"
So I looked up "huh" in my cheap $9 Merriam-Webster dictionary and it doesn't have the word..."huh" Maybe the use of "huh" is being used incorrectly and is used "inappropriate" for this thread. Or maybe I should get get a better dictionary.
Thomas since your on this thread what is your opinion on the use of the shift/tilt lens on this particular news image ? |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 8:30 AM on 07.22.08 |
->> sometimes I just can't resist.
The use of the tilt/shift is not the same as post-shooting manipulation.
I am of the opinion that the use of such lenses is more of an aesthetic issue than one of ethics. Which is not to say there are never ethical considerations, but they tend to be rare, as the aesthetics of the technique mostly override ethical considerations.
It's hard to consider an image to be a misleading alteration when the technique makes the image ... crappy. I've seen a few of the tilt/shift campaign shots that worked, and I've seen more and more that just look like shooting out of focus (or tilting your horizon for that matter) just for the sake of making a photo LOOK different on the premise that different is better.
I have the utmost respect for some of the practitioners of this technique as journalists based on their past work. But I find this technique to be generally one of those "i'm bored and want to do something different" looks that really don't work for me. But, clearly some editors disagree with me and so the technique flourishes as others try to copy one or two successes.
just my .02 of course. |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 8:35 AM on 07.22.08 |
->> Tom, you didn't need to go through so much trouble to find out what "Huh?" means. All you needed to do was click on "Definitions" link to the right of the rating scale...
"Huh?: This should be used when someone's point was not made because it was written in a confusing way. By marking a post with this, you are essentially asking the poster to try explaining their position again - this time more clearly."
Using that definition Thomas seems to be right on the money. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 9:22 AM on 07.22.08 |
| ->> personally I think this thread went off the road and into the woods. the opening question was legitimate. several folks responded, most newspapers won't use it in a news situation. no one was upset. it got skewed later on with some of the same things that happen whenever an ethics question comes up on this site. I think perhaps sean made the most concise statement about this. it's an aesthetic issue. and after seeing lots of member pages recently it's "the new bestest thing in the world"....I and the staffers I work with might be in the minority but we can't use it for news stuff. I wasn't saying it was unethical, I was answering a question...that has tended to be an irritation on this site recently...some folks don't like an answer to a certain question and put on the gloves.....oh well time to head out to the real world and try to keep my horizon line straight.... |
|
Mike Carlson, Photographer
|
Bayonet Point | FL | USA | Posted: 9:50 AM on 07.22.08 |
->> So, Chuck, are you saying that tilted horizons are manipulation and/or not aesthetically pleasing?
(Kidding here people...though it's bad when I feel compelled to add this disclaimer lest I be misinterpreted...) |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 10:02 AM on 07.22.08 |
->> tilted horizons? man I'm so old I have trouble just holding the camera up to my face. I got me one of them newfangled inventions attached to my camera...a laser thingamabob ultra sensitive leveling device with a special flash unit attached which guarantees to keep the corners from going black on my photos. it's the latest and newest bright and shiny best thing. tilt/shift? that is SO last week!
(with apologies to mr. walter calahan) |
|
Eric Bellamy, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 7:38 PM on 07.22.08 |
->> I've never used a TS lens but I do have a Speed Graphic and it has movements. They are limited but it does tilt, shift and rise. My camera is over 50 years old. If I shot a general news photo with my old "press camera" would it be unethical? How is a TS lens any different.
If new technologies such as a TS are unethical we all must have to use leicas er... Rollieflexes, no, Speed Graphics (oops they have movements) screw it I'll just shoot all of my assignments with a camera obscura! The tough part will be coating the asphalt plates.
I have always believed the true sin was to change the content of the photo. I don't think that he changed the content with a little bit of selective focus.
Maybe I'm wrong. |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
SB-900 TTL AF Shoe Mount Speedlight
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $499.95 |
Notes:
The SB-900 i-TTL Speedlight leads the Nikon Creative Lighting System delivering the portability, power and versatility to support any photographer's creative lighting imagination. SportsShooter.com users should call 866-726-9463 to get the special SportsShooter price.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|