| 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
Red-eye removal; would you be fired?
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 2:02 PM on 09.03.08 |
->> This thread is primarily for photojournalist working for newspapers, magazine other media outlets. Event shooters and other are welcome to post, but I'm looking for information from editorial side of the fence.
I've search back through old threads on the issue and the ethics of removal were really never directly discussed. So my question to fellow PJ out there is; if you performed red-eye removal via a graphics program would you be fired? Does your paper consider red-eye or zombie eye fixes as manipulation and unethical?
Thanks in advance for your honest response. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
 |
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 2:09 PM on 09.03.08 |
->> Clark I had one editor desaturate an image and run it B+W on a page with color photos. When I asked, I was told that it was because of red eye and that running the image B+W took care of the "problem".
The editor also stated that while THEY won't correct my submitted work, he would have had no problem running the image full color had I fixed the eyes. |
|
Matthew Williams, Photographer
 |
Nashville | TN | USA | Posted: 2:13 PM on 09.03.08 |
| ->> Take the flash off camera or bounce it and you shouldn't have to deal with it. I wouldn't feel comfortable taking out the red in someone's eyes for a newspaper, but I hardly ever have experienced the redeye effect while shooting with my flash, even when it is on camera. |
|
John Scarpa, Photographer, Student/Intern
 |
Bedminster | NJ | United States | Posted: 3:25 PM on 09.03.08 |
| ->> Have you tried asking your editor to see what he or she says? I have not had this problem in a while, but its worth just sending a quick email to your editor. |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 3:48 PM on 09.03.08 |
| ->> I've heard but was never able to confirm that a certain Columbus, Ohio paper once PhotoShopped out (or at least vigorously debated the removal of) an ... um ... appendage from the image of an athlete who was not wearing underwear during the shoot of him running. Now THAT's removal. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 4:42 PM on 09.03.08 |
->> Jeff,
You are referring to Alan Dietrich, and it is confirmed and well documented. It was well documented in hundreds of photographs after he left. The Associated Press ended up issuing 'kills' for photos shot by Alan Dietrich that were sent to the wire by his newspaper as well. |
|
William Maner, Photographer
|
Biloxi | MS | USA | Posted: 4:44 PM on 09.03.08 |
->> Red eye is the result of using a flash.. The use of a flash introduces a non-natural element to a given image.
Because a flash is being used to brighten the subject matter, I suppose it's less of an ethical question to remove something caused by the flash. Remember, no one has red eye in natural, given light.
This is not like removing a person or sign in the background of a photo.. Or blurring over a store name or license plate.
If your editor and/or publisher asked to you make the picture more "normal" by removing red eye, would you object on the grounds that it is significantly altering something in the image? |
|
Matthew Wisniewski, Student/Intern
|
Madison | WI | USA | Posted: 8:32 PM on 09.03.08 |
| ->> Isn't the point of editing a photo to make it look like it did when you saw it? I've never had to remove red eye because I bounce flash, but I don't think I'd get fired for doing it at the newspapers I've interned at in the past. |
|
Mike Ullery, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Piqua | OH | USA | Posted: 10:15 AM on 09.04.08 |
->> There are times when it is not possible to bounce flash and the only option is direct lighting so this "always" bounce flash thing is a moot point.
I was told that since red-eye is not part of the image that we saw, it is acceptable to remove it. I do my best to avoid red-eye in the first place but if it happens occasionally, our editors have no issue with removing it.
Thankfully, the newer models of Canon and Nikon cameras allow for available light shooting in more situations so this is not the issue that it once was. |
|
Les Stukenberg, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Prescott Valley | AZ | USA | Posted: 10:30 AM on 09.04.08 |
->> As a professional photographer and photo editor I expect that the photographers who work with me and myself to get results in a professional manner.. Thus I don't expect to get photos with red-eye from them, whether that's bouncing, or diffusing the light... As I keep reminding them we are not in the snapshot business.....
We do get submissions from people and I treat them like a quote if we choose to publish them they go as is whether that's in print or on the web... Some of our web personnel will correct red-eye on photos and I don't have a problem with that, but that's their deal... |
|
Kevin Leas, Photographer
 |
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 10:31 AM on 09.04.08 |
->> Clark,
I've actually been scolded by my editor for NOT removing red eye. They weren't my photos, but submitted pictures, but regardless...she even pulled up Photoshop and taught me her quick fix technique so that I'd be more likely to remove red eye from future pictures. |
|
Chris Machian, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 10:35 AM on 09.04.08 |
->> I could swear NPPA or SPJ had said it was ok to remove red eye since it was created by the photographer.
For the life of me, I can't find it online now. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 11:03 AM on 09.04.08 |
->> The problem with ethics is that there are never any hard and fast rules for them.
The NPPA's code of ethics does not address any practices with specificity so there won't be mention of red-eye removal.
The real guideline, did you alter the content of the photo, is where to start. As a member of the committee that wrote the NPPA's code, I can tell you that red-eye removal is not considered alteration of the content to a degree that should garner any sort of sanction.
that said, a real "purist" could argue that it's pretty sketchy to any sort of manipulation, since anything, even the widely accepted practice of red-eye removal, degrades the overall credibility of photojournalistic work. |
|
Aaron Rhoads, Photographer
 |
McComb | MS | USA | Posted: 11:13 AM on 09.04.08 |
| ->> Part of my camera strap was hanging over the lens. Can I photoshop that out? ;) |
|
Baron Sekiya, Photographer
 |
Kailua-Kona | HI | USA | Posted: 1:56 PM on 09.04.08 |
->> My problem would be that I don't keep track of the eye color of every athlete I shoot. If I desaturate the red-eye to grey/black what if the person has blue eyes? Green eyes?
What if they build red-eye removal into the firmware of the camera itself? Does that make it okay? |
|
Guy Rhodes, Photographer
 |
East Chicago | IN | USA | Posted: 4:45 PM on 09.04.08 |
->> "My problem would be that I don't keep track of the eye color of every athlete I shoot. If I desaturate the red-eye to grey/black what if the person has blue eyes? Green eyes?"
Most times its the pupil (not the colored iris) that appears red. If you just correct the pupil, you can retain the person's natural eye color. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 8:02 PM on 09.04.08 |
| ->> Not most of the time, all of the time it's the pupil that's red. Red-eye happens when your flash reflects back off the blood vessels of the retina. Now, red-eye mostly happens in low-light situations when the pupil is quite dilated, reducing the visible area of the iris to such a sliver it's virtually invisible anyway. Anyhow. You should be desaturating the pupil and leaving the iris alone. |
|
Bruce Twitchell, Photographer
 |
Coeur d'Alene | ID | USA | Posted: 8:08 PM on 09.04.08 |
->> "Because a flash is being used to brighten the subject matter, I suppose it's less of an ethical question to remove something caused by the flash. Remember, no one has red eye in natural, given light."
So if I shoot with direct flash and it causes a shadow behind the subject, is it okay to remove the shadow "since it was created by the photographer"?
In my opinion, red eye is part of the photo, just like anything else in the photo as it was captured. I, like all above, do all that I can do to avoid redeye, but when it is there, I either move to another image of deal with it being there. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
 |
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:43 PM on 09.04.08 |
| ->> The photo editor I work with has always told me that it was completely unacceptable....but I think Clark might already know who that is.... |
|
T.J. Hamilton, Photographer
 |
Grand Rapids | MI | USA | Posted: 5:27 PM on 09.07.08 |
->> Our photographers and stringers routinely remove red eye selecting the pupil for desaturation. Usually the only time is during football season, where we have to use on-camera flash at very dark football fields. We rarely see it anytime else since we use off camera lighting.
And no, we don't remove shadows, I think that's going too far. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
 |
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 9:54 PM on 09.07.08 |
->> Folks,
The general public is visually sophisticated enough to recognize a direct-flash image. They're also sufficiently savvy to understand red-eye removal.
I know that a lot of people are wrestling with these issues, but if you follow the philosophy of "Do not mislead," you'll be OK nearly every time.
When in doubt, ask your boss. If you are your boss, err on the side of doing nothing.
--Mark |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
We BUY & TRADE you OLD Gear
|
Available from:
Adorama Camera
|
Price: $0.00 |
Notes:
We all have some cameras & lenses sitting around collecting dust right?...Or you work at a Newspaper that has downsized?...What to do with your excess photographic equipment? Adorama's Used Dept is looking for your used gear to purchase or take in trade. Contact me directly jsnyder@adorama.com or 1-800-223-2500 X2435 and I can fill you in on the details. Cash in your pocket is better than sitting on the shelf, right?
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|