| 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
Paper fooled by contributor who submits composite photo
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
 |
Houston | TX | | Posted: 8:08 AM on 12.17.11 |
->> For me the salient phrase in the response is: "...submitted by a trusted contributor."
It has been said before: trust, but verify.
There also is the issue of accepting submissions rather than assign a staffer. On that I see no point in commenting. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
 |
SLC | UT | USA | Posted: 8:53 AM on 12.17.11 |
->> The Standard did send a staff photog to cover the event. But of course the staffer didn't capture this stunning image - because it never happened.
There is a Sportshooter member who is a staffer at the Standard. He may or may not be able to share more about the event. |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 9:01 AM on 12.17.11 |
->> And when we have these debates about what a journalism school can offer, what it takes to be a photojournalist and those debates. When people say that a degree is worthless, well, I am fairly sure they still teach at Mizzou or Ohio or Syracuse or Western Kentucky or any other PJ school that a statement like this is DEAD WRONG...(from the story)
-->
James considered the photo an example of time-lapse photography, not an altered image.
"To me, it was just a 10-minute gap," he said in a phone conversation. "I did not think I was doing anything against the rules." |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 9:30 AM on 12.17.11 |
->> Wow. I think the saddest thing about this is the editor's response. Apparently this "trusted contributor" must mean a lot to him since he bends over backwards
making excuses for the paper (and the so called "TC") publishing the photo. And I totally don't believe the guy saying he thought his "composite" photo was a "time-lapse since they were shot ten minutes apart" WTF? he's kidding right? IF you're such a "trusted contributor" of photos you KNOW the rules. But hey, they can lay off some more photojournalists to save money, I mean how much
do mea culpa's by this editor cost to run in the paper? oh yeah, nothing. |
|
Doug Pizac, Photographer
 |
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 9:59 AM on 12.17.11 |
->> You get what you pay for. Unfortunately newspapers, TV stations, etc. are now starting to prefer free stories and images more and more by amateurs in order to save money and increase profit margins over the quality and ethics of professionals that charge for their work. And with this comes the lowering of standards and harm to one's integrity.
The Deseret News also trusted a contributor who turned out to be a local city's mayor. The paper needs content because it had laid off about half its staff last year. Several of its website photos now are royalty free images that have nothing to do with the actual stories they illustrate; and the same goes with a lot of TV station sites who are using stock to jazz up their web copy. And recently CNN fired 50 photographers and editors because the station now gets "free" content from contributors.
If a staff reporter plagiarized a story or a photographer faked a picture they would be fired. What isn't said in the Ogden paper's explanation is if the contributor will be allowed to continue to contribute or not. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
 |
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 10:09 AM on 12.17.11 |
->> "The trains passed his vantage point 10 minutes apart.
For Parks, though, that was a distinction without a difference."
I'm speechless. |
|
Michael Prengler, Photographer
 |
Fairview | TX | USA | Posted: 10:48 AM on 12.17.11 |
->> The non-mobile link in post 2 gets you to the composite and base images a little quicker.
Great image for fiction, not for reality, which is what should be expected from a news outlet.
Pretty simple standard....DON'T "F" with the content of the photos. Adjust your colors, crop a little and move on, either you have the shot or you don't. |
|
Mike Janes, Photographer
 |
Attica | NY | USA | Posted: 11:52 AM on 12.17.11 |
->> I've met more "sports photographers" throughout the past year than the previous twelve combined that had the same mentality, saying how they just need to do this and that to a photo before submitting it to make it better - and they were working for publications; OK "working" means trading images for a credential.
You'd think editors would at least send out a code of ethics to anyone submitting images or content, especially those who never worked in media or have an education behind them journalism based. It's really not that hard, doesn't mean the contributors will follow the guidelines but can be a little proactive at least! |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
SLC | UT | USA | Posted: 12:02 PM on 12.17.11 |
| ->> What is surprising is how long it took for them to come clean about it. |
|
Myung Chun, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 12:04 PM on 12.17.11 |
| ->> What i find offensive about the article is the author calling the picture an "iconic image." Not ... Even... Close. |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 1:17 PM on 12.17.11 |
| ->> "I believe the photographer did not set out to deceive us or the public".....the shooter took two pix, combined in PS, then gave it to a newspaper without telling the paper that he created a new collage...that the weekend folks could not figure out if it was PS'd. Hopefully this guy can sell the 16x20's of this images to other railroad buffs, but will he tell the buyers that he merged two images? I understand creating a collage to sell to the public, but all parties involved accepting it as news, that is a whole other can of corn. |
|
Darren Carroll, Photographer
 |
Cedar Creek (Austin) | TX | USA | Posted: 3:30 PM on 12.17.11 |
->> What absolutely astounds me is that Andy Howell, the executive editor of the paper (not the ombudsman, not the photo editor, not a copy editor, but the EXECUTIVE editor) cannot, and does not, see the direct, causal relationship between these consecutive sentences in his "explanation:"
"The end result was more a product of miscommunication and a naive misunderstanding on the photographer's part."
Followed by...
"It is also a cautionary tale for us and other newspapers as we rely more and more on citizen journalists and contributors."
Rather, he has the temerity to blame the photographer, whom he has just called "naive" and, later, simply a "local train enthusiast:"
"The big mistake James made was not telling us the image was a composite."
Really? We're supposed to think that it's entirely plausible to believe that Mr. Parks, a "naive" "local train enthusiast" is going to know what his ethical journalistic responsibilities are when leaving what he simply considered a "nice photo" in the hands of your staff for possible publication?
No, Mr. Howell, the "big mistake" had nothing to do with James.
The "big mistake" had everything to do with your picture desk not asking Mr. Parks to produce the frames immediately preceding and following his "iconic image."
The "big mistake" had everything to do with the newspaper's fact-checking staff not taking 30 seconds to call the Union Pacific Railroad to verify the schedules and arrival times of the trains in question, and check them against the time stamp in the photo's IPTC data.
But perhaps the biggest of all the "big mistakes" had everything to do with your willingness to outsource the work that should be done by trained, professional, staff photographers to "citizen journalists."
Mr. Howell closes his not-quite-an-apology-because-it's-not-totally-our-fault explanation by noting that "Our role in policing content could be as simple as asking the right questions."
OR... It could be as simple as not trying to pull in content on the cheap from amateurs. You get what you pay for. And your newspaper, and its reputation and credibility, deserves every bit of what it gets for this one. |
|
Tim Snow, Photographer
 |
Montreal | Qc | Canada | Posted: 5:43 PM on 12.17.11 |
->> @Myung Chun,you took the words right out of my mouth! It's alright, but how many of us in that exact situation would have kept firing until the trains filled the frame? I mean, if you are going to go to the length of faking it, wouldn't it look better with a straighter horizon and maybe having the top red train further to the right of the composition? And would we not have submitted at least 2 photographs with different timing to give the layout guys a couple of choices?
"He said he had read a column of mine where I explained that photojournalists try to tell a story with their images. To him, combining the photos was just a way of telling the story." Journalists don't tell stories, they report the news. Fiction writers tell stories.
All it takes is a 2 second conversation between the editor and a contributor who is not a news photographer:
"You have a photograph you can send for free (another whole issue on its own...) great, thanks! Has the photograph been modified in any way using Photoshop?"
"Why, yes it has...I did the following" |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
 |
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 7:54 PM on 12.17.11 |
->> "Michael Evans (1989), editor of graphics and photography at the Atlanta Journal and Constitution and former White House "photo opportunity" photographer for the Reagan administration, has a more relaxed opinion. Evans cited W. Eugene Smith's work as an example of "emphatically accurate photos" that are nevertheless manipulated. Evans wrote that "Through burning, dodging, bleaching, negative-sandwiching, double-printing and a veritable arsenal of other brilliant special effects, Gene Smith produced prints that dazzled a photographically unsophisticated world that literally thirsted for images" (pp. 26-28). A famous portrait of Dr. Albert Schweitzer by Smith was a composite print from two images because the main negative was technically flawed due to fogging. Even the famous photograph, "The Migrant Mother" by Dorothea Lange was retouched to eliminate a "ghostly thumb" in a comer of her composition (Ohm, 1980)."
read the rest of it here http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/chapter6.html |
|
Dennis Montgomery, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Ogden | UT | United States | Posted: 8:39 AM on 12.18.11 |
->> I usually just lurk on the message board, soaking up the wisdom and humor of the more experienced members, but on seeing this thread I knew I had to add my comments. I have shot freelance both on assignment and spec for the newspaper in question. More importantly, I was there at the exact spot when the published image was purportedly taken trying to get the same type shot.
When I picked up the paper that Sunday morning (yes, I actually subscribe to the print edition!), I knew it was most likely a composite. I went to my project file and checked the metadata when the steam train had made its initial approach into Ogden, as well as some images I had taken of a Frontrunner train which had passed by during the same time period. There was a nine minute gap.
I knew the train was going to be switched to get it headed in the desired direction before it backed into the station, but I could not stick around to get more images because I was threatened with a trespassing citation by a railroad cop and had to leave. I went to the station and could see the steam plume in the distance and the Frontrunner trains that arrived/departed the station while the train was being switched. Looking at my photos, it still appeared to me that there was no way the photographer in question could have gotten that shot since the plume and the Frontrunner locations on the high bridge did not match up. But I assumed (never a good thing) the paper had done due diligence and vetted the image prior to publication. For two weeks, I have wondered about that image---now I know.
The board comments pretty well sum up the errors made and the subsequent implications in publishing the image. I would like to make some observations regarding the comments:
First, the image might not be iconic on a national scale, but Ogden is a railroad town with a long history of railroading to include a large railroad museum. The Frontrunner, as a modern commuter rail system, is unique in Utah. To local residents and to the editors, it was an iconic image.
Second, the staff photographer was where she should have been taking the photos that reflected the event and the reaction of local residents. She was not out on the other side of the railyard trying to capture a low probability event, such as the passing of two special trains at a particular point. That was left to freelancers who had nothing to lose and were willing to take a chance.
Third, the paper has cut down on its use of freelance photographers in favor of staff photographers, courtesy photos and file photos. They are judicious on who they use to cover assignments if a staff photographer is not available. They do not rely on citizen photo journalists, although the power of "free" is certainly a factor, but not in this case.
Lastly, we seem to have lost sight of the fact that the managing editor himself owned up to the error. He did not bury it in a small box on page 2 but instead featured it on page 1 of the local section, complete with photos. (courtesy photos I might add). While you can argue about what he said and the why's of how it happened, he admitted the error and was willing to accept the criticism it entailed. I am sure lessons have been learned and policies changed as a result, which is a good thing.
One other item that might provoke further discussion: should the paper have used the image if the photographer/graphic artist initially identified it as a composite, identifying the image as a composite in the credit line??? |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
SLC | UT | USA | Posted: 9:33 AM on 12.18.11 |
->> A staffer posted the error to his Facebook page several days before the editor admitted or owned the mistake.
The knowledge of what happened was widely circulated among the other Utah papers.
I don't think the Standard editor had any choice but to come clean.
That he did days afters it was posted and then removed from Facebook will always make me wonder. |
|
Dennis Montgomery, Photographer, Assistant
|
Ogden | UT | United States | Posted: 11:07 AM on 12.18.11 |
->> Mike---I was not aware the error was posted to a Facebook page and was known in the local photojournalism community prior to the admission by the managing editor.
Base on that piece of information, let me scratch the last of my comments retaining only the last sentence:
"I am sure lessons have been learned and policies changed as a result, which is a good thing." |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 11:09 AM on 12.18.11 |
->> BTW, since "iconic" has been fatuously injected in this apology over a fake train image might we take some time out for the real deal:
http://tinyurl.com/6pfpoj |
|
Michael Prengler, Photographer
|
Fairview | TX | USA | Posted: 12:02 PM on 12.18.11 |
| ->> David - Thanks for posting that link. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 12:11 PM on 12.18.11 |
| ->> link...I get it... |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 12:20 PM on 12.18.11 |
->> There is an interesting aside here, how much latitude do we give our predecessors for "tinkering" with images? I mean, we all now that TODAY this was wrong, right? But way back when, when you didn't have digital cards and could see images immediately, or even back when you had a bag of rolls with 36 frames each...way back, one and done on a Speed Graphic.
How much latitude do we afford that history?
Someone mentioned W. Eugene Smith. I also think about A. Aubrey Bodine (http://aaubreybodine.com/). That man was a master. His images routinely ran in the Baltimore Sun. But, very little of what he did was a straight image. He sandwiched negatives, scratched negatives to give the effect of falling snow, I mean, he did everything...and it was accepted.
I think today any image he produced would have to have numerous disclaimers on them.
Still, just wondering why we accept now what they did back then? Do they get a bit of a pass because of technology or do we just say that photojournalism has evolved to where it is now?
We all know this photo, today, was wrong. But suppose it was taken in 1940, would anyone have even given it a second thought? It is an interesting debate. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
 |
Atlanta | Ga | USA | Posted: 12:21 PM on 12.18.11 |
| ->> Unfortunately, a newspaper will have to be seriously sued and lose in court to come to the realization it's not worth accepting work from these citizen contributors. Stay tuned. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 12:52 PM on 12.18.11 |
| ->> there really is no debate. just as technology has changed things ethics have changed over the years. it was pretty common to set up photos decades ago. I worked with some old timers who regularly set up photos at assignments and did some incredible crazy things during their printing in the darkroom. need a moon in that night sky shot? no problem! drop a quarter on the paper during the printing. need snow...sprinkle your cigarette ashes on the print....I could go on...but the point is that sometime in the early 70's an awareness started to spread that these kinds of things were unacceptable. it didn't happen overnight. I started out working with a mix of old school newspapermen and a couple of young guys (mid-20's) who were always battling over these things. the old editors said setting up photos, telling people what to do and moving things around was okay. the young guys would take me aside and tell me not to listen to them, that wasn't the way I should do my job. interesting times. of course, the old ways died out. later in the late 1980's I worked with some old school guys who used to do all those things but even they had to re-tool themselves, or face serious reprimands, especially from the younger shooters on the staff, all who had journalism degrees. attempting to compare this manipulation with the way things were done 50 years ago is nonsense. it was wrong. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
 |
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:53 PM on 12.18.11 |
->> Dennis,
Direct answer: The image should not have been used in the paper unless it was accompanied by adjacent play of the original images.
The rule should be, "Do Not Mislead." An explainer in the caption would not have been sufficient.
--Mark |
|
James Durbin, Photographer, Student/Intern
 |
Carbondale | IL | USA | Posted: 3:01 PM on 12.18.11 |
->> Thanks Chuck, for the glimpse into the way ethics have changed as a newspaper man in the last few decades.
@Mark Loundy, I respect your opinion and from reading your bio I want to make it clear that I am offering a counter-opinion (is that a word?) as respectfully as I can. Call it, picking your brain.
Running a composite image and clearly identifying it as a graphic illustration, graphic, whatever the term may be, for the sake of showing readers the contrast of then vs now doesn't seem to me to be a bad idea when used correctly. The image is illustrative and informative, showcasing the old vs the new. That particular image certainly has some technical issues, but are you saying that you see a problem with using a graphic illustration/composite in any form, even if it is openly identified as such? |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 8:00 PM on 12.18.11 |
->> James,
I should be able to look at an image in a newspaper and be confident that what I'm seeing is a reasonable representation of what I would have seen if I had been looking through the viewfinder myself – without reading the caption.
I'm uncomfortable in general with techniques that are fundamentally designed to make a scene look like something it wasn't. I say save it for the art gallery. Even then, I would feel tricked and cheated if I bought a print that turned out to be a composite.
--Mark |
|
Andrew Brosig, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Nacogdoches | TX | United States | Posted: 9:20 PM on 12.18.11 |
| ->> Perhaps I'm imagining things, but after looking at the images posted with the story, I think it should have been fairly obvious something was wrong with the image. The shadows of the steam from the lower locomotive in the composite don't match up. There's no hint of shadow across the train above or the bridge where I believe there should be. Tell me I'm crazy, but I think the editor/desk should have at least asked the question before running the composite. |
|
James Durbin, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Carbondale | IL | USA | Posted: 10:05 PM on 12.18.11 |
| ->> What I see that is more obvious than the shadows is the fact that the back half of the top train is missing. Presumably 'obscured by steam' but really you should be able to see at least a bit of the bright red color peeking through. |
|
John J Coleman, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Milford | Ct | United States | Posted: 11:09 PM on 12.18.11 |
| ->> This wasn't the first time it happen. It won't be the last |
|
James Durbin, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Carbondale | IL | USA | Posted: 1:52 AM on 12.19.11 |
| ->> Michael, that is a true work of art. |
|
Nick Short, Photographer
|
Ogden | UT | USA | Posted: 9:35 PM on 12.20.11 |
->> I wanted to stay away from this thread as I am not going to be drawn into a public dialogue about my opinions, your opinions or pretty much any aspect of the situation or the response to it. However, I want to clear up a few misconceptions. We don’t have a photo editor on the weekends. We haven’t for a long time. The photographers that do work on the weekend turn in their photos with their preference on what they think the best image is. Sometimes their opinion is taken, sometimes it isn’t. In this instance, an image was emailed to the news editor and, well, we all know how it went.
My boss, Robert Johnson, who was mentioned in the editor’s column as having congratulated the photographer on the image, was curious as to the origins of the image since we did have a staffer there who did not see that moment happen. He offered his compliments as a way to open a dialogue with the photographer and learn more about the photo and whether it was real. Through that initial email and subsequent conversation he learned that it was a composite and brought it to Andy Howell’s attention.
It took a couple days to get the original images to accompany the column by Andy Howell. As Andy Howell’s column typically runs on a Saturday, that was chosen as the appropriate forum to address the issue. Right or wrong, that was the thought process. There was no nefarious plot to sweep it under the rug as Mike Brice has suggested. As far as the facebook posting that was removed, what company in the world wants its failings exposed before it has an opportunity to discuss the situation on its terms? None. So it was asked that the post be taken down. |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
LEXAR 16GB 400X CF CARD 2 PACK
|
Available from:
Adorama Camera
|
Price: $119.95 |
Notes:
SPECIAL 2/PACK of Lexar's Professional 400x CompactFlash 16GB Card is designed for reliable high-speed performance (minimum of 60 MB/s read rate), ideal for capture and storage of high quality images on your DSLR camera--stills and video. WHILE SUPPLIES LAST
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
