| 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
Telling it like it is...
Rich Cruse, Photographer
 |
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 3:20 AM on 07.13.09 |
->> I see a number of images that are montages or have been heavily filtered in PhotoShop being presented as photographs. I believe they should be referred to as photo illustrations.
Here is a good read on the subject.
http://tinyurl.com/mnl3cx |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 3:32 AM on 07.13.09 |
->> "being presented as photographs"
They are photographs. |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 8:07 AM on 07.13.09 |
->> Rich--
Can you give an example of a specific image, and can you be specific about where said image is displayed/used?
What might best be called a photo illustration in a newspaper where journalism standards prevail may equally deserve to be called a photograph in a gallery or some other non-journalism display.
Specifics please. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 9:04 AM on 07.13.09 |
| ->> Here we go again . . . |
|
Anantachai Brown, Photographer
|
Jacksonville | FL | | Posted: 9:07 AM on 07.13.09 |
| ->> what would you think about the special feature? BTW i think Gerry Melendez did a GREAT job. |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 10:59 AM on 07.13.09 |
| ->> Gerry Melendez's update ROCKS!!! The images are awesome |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 1:37 PM on 07.13.09 |
| ->> fantastic images from Gerry Melendez. |
|
Rich Cruse, Photographer
|
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 2:11 PM on 07.13.09 |
->> Yes, Gerry's images are spectacular and I told him so.
My comments are more about how images are presented in publications. In my view, if an image is a composite or has been altered beyond normal toning in PhotoShop, it should be referred to as a photo composite or photo illustration. Most people do not understand PhotoShop techniques and they need to be aware that the image they are looking at is not in its original state and that it has been manipulated.
The dictionary refers to a photograph as
photograph
noun
a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment.
All I am saying is that published images need to be credited properly. In order to maintain credibility, a photograph that has not been altered beyond toning should be referred to as a photograph. If an image has been altered in other ways, it should be noted. The readers need to be aware that what they are seeing is a composite and/or the image has been altered through manipulation in PhotoShop or using other techniques.
I am not saying magazines and newspapers should stop using composites or manipulated images- only that they should be labeled as such, so there is no confusion. You want to maintain 100% credibility here. This is most certainly true with hard news photos.
If you want to make a print and sell it in a gallery, that's fine. When you present something as journalism, you need to be accurate with the description of what you are presenting. If it has been altered, say so.
Although NPPA has set guidelines for imagery in publication, there really are no set world wide standards. The page I referred to talks about simple things like removing graffiti off a wall or taking out a lamppost. These are things that by themselves do not seem that big of a deal, but if you are presenting the images as factual, that would be misleading. Altering any image by adding or removing elements changes the affect and meaning of the image and should be noted as such. I am not saying you can't do it but if you do it, say so! |
|
Joe Morahan, Photographer
|
Denver | Co | USA | Posted: 2:12 PM on 07.13.09 |
->> Gerry did a great job on that shoot.
Lots of great images and each one is a bit different-Way to go |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 5:12 PM on 07.13.09 |
->> Rich, while I agree that most people do not understand photoshop techniques, you would also have to admit that most people don't bother to read the caption that says either "photo by.." or "photo illustration by..." nor do they care.
How many readers are really intrested in if its a "photograph" or if its a "tone mapped HDR image" or whatever you want to call it ?
Its sort of preaching to the choir really because anyone who actually reads a photo credit already knows what a photo illustration, HDR tonemapping, et al is.
I do agree with you, and it certainly wouldnt hurt anything to have those matters more clear, I just can't say I can get behind your passion for the issue.
When I'm reading a magazine and theres a portrait shoot of some celebrity or something, and the images have that Dave Hill/Lucis Art/High Pass Filter technique applied to them, I just can't say I'm really going to be concerned with if it says "photo" or "photo illustration".
I just can't see it as really being an issue, at least until I start seeing tonemapped or otherwise heavily processed digital images on the cover of the news section, which I dont think we'll see anytime soon.
For everything else such commerical and advertisng etc, I think its fair game to call it a photograph still regardless of if its a composite, tone mapped, shot on a blue or green screen etc.
If its a still image in that regard its a photo, if its a moving image its a video. Seems simple enough to me.
Also on the subject of video, I don't think they have any specifications to let the audience know if they are viewing something thats CGI effects or pure video footage.
I wouldnt expect the TV news to have CGI flames added to the footage of a burning home, anymore than I'd expect to see that added to a still news photo.
If its a Hollywood movie though, or an arts/entertainment magazine, its fair game and they can call it what they what, as long as they aren't trying to pass it off as news |
|
Rich Cruse, Photographer
|
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 5:38 PM on 07.13.09 |
->> Jeff,
You make some great points.
As for TV, remember the fallout from the use of CGI effects at the opening ceremonies in Beijing?
I guess it is about maintaining the integrity of the image. It is imperative for news. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 7:52 PM on 07.13.09 |
->> Very good and intresting point you bring up with the fireworks at the Opening Ceremony Rich.
One on hand, the Opening Ceremony was basically an entertainment event. It was very expensive staged production and utilized every form of technology at their disposal. Yet on the other hand, the games were also being covering from a journalistic standpoint and the CGI fireworks designed to enhance the Opening Ceremony could be viewed as crossing the line.
As a bit of a sidenote, I think its worth noting that the "public outrage" was basically non existant, whatever that may be worth.
Where is the line drawn and how do you draw it ? Do you run a message on the bottom of the screen that says "CGI fireworks added"
When the weekend weather girl is shown in front of a blue/green screen do you need to add a disclaimer that there is some chromakey substitution going on ?
I make these video points in contrast to those of a print publication because I think they actually do have a number of similarities.
If lets say Entertainment Weekly has a manipulated photo with the cast of some TV show does that need to be clarified for the reader or would we just leave it as it and credit the photographer ?
Do we no longer refer to them as a photographer but rather a graphic artist if theres some manipulation ?
Is the issue the manipulation itself ?
Is doing the so called "Dave Hill/Jill Greenburg" look different than airbrushing a SI swimsuit model in days past ?
What about the Wall St Journal and their dot matrix graphics style ? Where would something like that fall ?
Is HDR really manipulation or is rather a means to actually present a scene MORE accurately and not just based upon the rather limited dynamic range of photographic film/digital sensors ?
Think about it, we view a scene far differently with our eyes than the limited dynamic range our cameras can render and as such, are making a choice on what parts of that scene we want to reproduce. HDR, while looking processed (and "fake" when overdone) is giving a more honest account of what we could actually percieve.
Obviously this is just more questions than answers, but thats often half the fun in such debates. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 8:31 PM on 07.13.09 |
| ->> I'm not going to get into a pissing match with ya'll tonight but one thing I will say on this subject. The day, we, as journalist's let "public outrage" guide us morally and ethically is the day we make Allan Detrich the HMFIC of Photojournalism ethics. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 8:43 PM on 07.13.09 |
->> I wouldn't say its an issue of anyone feeling they should or shouldn't be guided by the public, but rather just an observation in the lack of any public outrage thats intresting. Does not mean its right, or moral or ethical just because its accepted, but it does make it intresting in regards to the public's perception and acceptance of such events. Would such actions of sparked a difference responce in years past ? Are we so used to digital images, video games, CGI etc that we as a society have shifted our values and standards ?
Being a longtime fan of movie special effects, I find it intresting these days how few people actually do things outside the digital enviroment and viewers often dont even belive it was real on account of expecting everything is just CGI. We just don't accept CGI but rather expect it, at least in terms of motion pictures. Does that mentality then affect our collective standards for other forms of media ? |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 9:02 PM on 07.13.09 |
| ->> HMFIC? |
|
Kent Nishimura, Student/Intern
|
Honolulu | HI | USA | Posted: 1:23 AM on 07.14.09 |
->> hmfic...head mother (blank) in charge.
i think. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 10:16 AM on 07.14.09 |
->> Kent:
You are correct :-) |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:58 PM on 07.14.09 |
->> The public doesn't get "outraged" over journalistic ethical lapses. Outrage is pretty much limited to within the profession itself.
Far worse than outrage, the public simply loses trust in journalism. When the trust goes away, the value goes with it. Typically people don't make grand major decisions over media. They just turn around one day and say, "Gee, I haven't picked up the newspaper in months. Let's cancel it."
--Mark |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 4:11 PM on 07.14.09 |
| ->> Thank you Mark. This is the point that folks who think we should only be upset about ethics violations when there is "public outrage" don't get. The fact of the matter is as I posted on another thread is I feel part of our responsibility is to educate the public on our ethics when given the chance. Most of the time they are amazed that we are not allowed to pose photos. And lemme tell you, that "light bulb" moment is a wonderful thing to see. That's when someone really understands what we do. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 8:31 PM on 07.14.09 |
->> But then the question is does that understanding really add any value to the publics perception of what we do or does it merely add to our own percieved value of what we do ?
Are consumers really not picking up papers and canceling subscriptions because they've lost trust in us over moral or ethical issues ?
Are these "this is why you need us" type threads really changing the publics perception and revitalizing a dying industry or are we merely preaching to the choir ? A choir who's voice continues to dimish as each week more of us are laid off or downsized ?
I'm ethical, your ethical, hes ethical. We are all ethical here. We are the last moral holdouts practicing the dying art of photojournalism in an industry filled with GWC's and Citizen Journalist. Without us there will be no truth or freedom and without truth and freedom a society can not survive. Or intregrity and values are the core pillars upon which life as we know it depends.
Sounds good, really does. I'm proud to be a part of it, but are such pats on the back really going to help when the next round of layoffs come around ? |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 11:45 PM on 07.14.09 |
->> This all applies when you are a "Photo Journalist" the hired "Event" photographer poses and create shots all day long and the "Photo Journalist" in my experiences when operating as the House event photographer, has absolutely no issues taking the shots setup and created by the House event shooter and I have seen them running the next day in the "News" paper.
I would like to hear jouranalists views on that situation, if the posed shot is created/made to happen by the house photographer operating for the event client is it then okay for the photographer operating in the "Photo Journalist" capacity to take that image? It was still a manufactured shot/created photo op, just created by someone that was not working as a journalist on that day.
Interested to hear the thoughts on this. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 12:36 AM on 07.15.09 |
->> Louis, I think it really comes down to what your trying to portray with your image and the ethical/moral issues behind how you go about it.
I dont know of any hard or fast rule that you can't run a set up photo of an event, at least at any paper I've worked for. For example, after a team wins a championship, they might all gather togther with the trophy, hold up their fingers etc. Thats a setup photo situation but its still a perfectly ethical journalistic moment showing the teams celebration. I've even requested teams all gather around for a photo op like that myself if its a smaller event and theres no tv producers etc handling things. Its a photo the paper wants to have, of the whole team with their trophy, because its an example of the paper serving as a source of historical record for the community.
Now as an editor, I might prefer a more candid reaction shot right after the team won, but I would still get a shot of the team together as well with everyone in the frame. At the very least many publications will run that photo along with a congratulations message along with the core article.
I've never seen a photojournalist not shoot an awards presentation or team photo because its staged saying that was unethical.
Now thats quite different than going to something like a house fire and finding the residents and telling them look upset and full sadness if they really aren't feeling that way because it would make a more compelling photo. Thats obviously staging something to mislead the viewer and is never acceptable.
Even though we can't seem to get enough debate over the subject, its all pretty darn simple stuff. I think, or at least I'd hope, that we all are equiped with basic understanding of whats right or wrong.
If you manipulated conditions, subjects or the image itself to change its perceptived meaning, thats not good journalism. That seems a pretty simple thing to understand to me.
People don't fake a photo because they don't understand its wrong, they do it because they think it will make their photo better. Its like stealing. No one doesn't know its wrong, they just dont care or dont think they'll get caught.
If your covering an event and the participants of the event all are grouped together for a photo op and you take that photo, your simply documenting the happenings of the event. Thats still news and its still good journalism.
Take a recent assignment I had with some school district honor members. Theres kids were from different schools in the district and were just called up one by one to get their award. They never were all on stage at once, nor did they interact as a group candidly but your assignment is obviously to get a shot of all of them.
So what do you do ? Just turn in a shot of one of the 5 kids you were assigned ? Shoot a wide angle shot of the whole audience and say the kids are all in there somewhere ?
No, you get the group of kids together, have them hold up their awards and smile for the photo. Grip and grin as they say, if thats what your assigned.
Then you caption it as such, saying such and such honor society award winners pose for a photo with their awards on the such and such day ....
Your not misleading anyone doing that, its stated and expected that you gathered that group for the photo.
World of difference between setting up a shot for a school district awards section to show all the winners together and faking a hard news story, crime scene, war, natural disaster etc.
Simply ask yourself if the photo you took accurately represents the event in a fair, honest and accurate manner. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:57 AM on 07.15.09 |
->> Jeff, what in God's name are you talking about?
"Sounds good, really does. I'm proud to be a part of it, but are such pats on the back really going to help when the next round of layoffs come around ?"
Are you a full time staffer for as newspaper? I keep reading the things you're posting and all I can truthfully say is you still don't understand the ethics we as daily newspaper photographers abide by. You might think it doesn't matter, you might think there's wiggle room with your weird examples of "trophy presentations". With all due respect maybe you should step back and not respond to posts that you obviously don't understand. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:36 AM on 07.15.09 |
->> Jeff,
The subconscious trust of the public is pretty much all we journalists have ever had going for us. Newspapers might be circling the drain right now, but destroying the trust would be like sawing the entire bottom out of the bathtub for all of journalism.
Nobody reads the news because they think it's good for them. They read it because -- on some level -- it's enjoyable. They enjoy knowing things that they could not otherwise know, seeing things they could not otherwise see and hearing things that they could not otherwise hear.
If you take away the perception that what they are seeing is a fair representation of reality, then they have no reason at all to come to us.
--Mark |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 3:05 AM on 07.15.09 |
->> Funny to be asked what in God's name I'm talking about and told not to post by Chuck Liddy of all people lol
I personally think its pretty clear what I'm talking about and the "weird" example of trophy presentations was in fact specifically in reference to the question Louis asked about situations where someone else might be setting up a photo and if its acceptable to also shoot that when situation when covering the event as a photojournalist. Gee, that sure sounds like an example of a trophy presentation to me.
Is it not ? Is that shot of the trophy presentation at the Super Bowl thats specifically set up for the television broadcast and carefully staged but that still runs in nearly every publication you can think unethical journalsim according to you ? Did it mislead the readers or otherwise inaccurately present a situation ? No, its a photo of someone being given a trophy during an orchestra ceremony and its presented as such.
You really don't shoot those things Chuck ?
With all due respect to you as well Chuck, I do in fact fully understand the ethical issues at hand. As I said, they are pretty darn simple and clear cut as to what is right and what is wrong. I really can't understand why you like to make it appear your the only good, just and moral individual left when in reality the same can be said for at least 99% of our peers save for a few exceptions that sadly do arise. This isn't your personal cross to bear.
I really miss the funny Chuck Liddy, not the disgusted and morally outraged guy. |
|
Danny Gawlowski, Photographer
|
Bellingham | WA | USA | Posted: 3:25 AM on 07.15.09 |
->> Rich:
"I dont know of any hard or fast rule that you can't run a set up photo of an event, at least at any paper I've worked for."
I can't think of a single publication I've worked for that didn't have that hard and fast rule.
"Its a photo the paper wants to have, of the whole team with their trophy ... At the very least many publications will run that photo along with a congratulations message along with the core article."
I can't think of a single publication that would run the boring, posed shot along with the actual moment. Every editor I've worked for has thought that the holding-up-trophy shot is cliche and would tear me apart if I brought that back to the office instead of a legitimate jubilation moment.
"You get the group of kids together, have them hold up their awards and smile for the photo. Grip and grin as they say, if thats what your assigned."
Sure, you could set up a portrait, but any editor I've ever had would resist printing that. My editors have always fought to put me in a documentary situation so I don't have to make a portrait. In the situation you describe, yes, I would find a legitimate moment and run with that. I'll allow the text to run the names of every award winner. I'll use the image to show the emotion of winning.
"Grip and grin?" That's a surefire way to put readers asleep and to get my editor's blood boiling.
Maybe it's a generational gap or maybe we've simply had very different experiences with newspaper journalism. But I honestly have never worked for a publication that wants the kind of image you're suggesting. And I'm writing this to make sure that any student or beginner reading this doesn't get the wrong idea that all publications follow the values you just laid out. I hear what you're saying, but I really disagree with the examples you're citing. |
|
Danny Gawlowski, Photographer
|
Bellingham | WA | USA | Posted: 3:27 AM on 07.15.09 |
->> Rich:
"The trophy shot" is not only a question of ethics. It's a question of what is cliche. Editors I have worked for would rather avoid it. |
|
Danny Gawlowski, Photographer
|
Bellingham | WA | USA | Posted: 3:31 AM on 07.15.09 |
| ->> Rich? Sorry, I meant Jeff. My apologies. I was quoting Jeff, not Rich. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 8:45 AM on 07.15.09 |
| ->> Jeff, my apologies about not being funny. I am a pretty funny guy but ethics is pretty high on my "outrage" list. And just so we're clear, I don't understand how my opinion on ethics makes you think I'm on higher moral ground than anyone else who is passionate about this. Quite frankly, it doesn't. And as Rich posted above the "trophy shot" even at a national championship game is avoided by us. Sure we shoot it (especially with photo galleries and the like now) but as far as it being a display photo? Not likely unless something spontaneous happens (which hasn't at any of the tournies I've covered) Our editors want moments and have felt for about 15 years that if you're relying on a "trophy" shot for your lede photo at the end of a championship you're a lazy photographer. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|