| 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
ESPN.com/Tiger/Getty/NIke/Different (Same) Image.... ?
Ivan Pierre Aguirre, Student/Intern, Assistant
 |
El Paso | TX | United States | Posted: 2:47 PM on 07.17.09 |
->> Do any of you guys see the difference between these two images?
(Tiger silhouette)
espn.com
(Tiger silhouette)
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/89078171/Getty-Images-Sport
Seems like ESPN made it a point to keep (advertise) the NIke logos on the photo of Tiger on espn.com and the not on the original (Getty.com.) Shouldn't the photo on espn.com say "Photo Illustration"...?
Now I am not accusing anybody of anything but. There is clearly a difference, right?
eh...just wanted to know what you guys think.
-ipa |
|
Michael Ip, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 3:14 PM on 07.17.09 |
| ->> It doesn't look like a photo illustration to me. If you look at the original, the logos are there, just dark. Looks to me they just adjusted the levels a bit, and possibly dodged the logos a bit. |
|
Chad Ryan, Photographer
|
Fort Wayne | IN | USA | Posted: 3:15 PM on 07.17.09 |
->> I'm not sure I'd call foul on this. It just looks like the one on ESPN has had the levels punched up enough to lighten the logo and the sky. Why they chose to do that is anybody's guess, but it could be as simple as the person who worked it for the web used a monitor that made the photo appear darker on their end than how we're seeing it.
Certainly there might have been other motives, but I don't think this situation warrants an upheaval. |
|
Derek Montgomery, Photographer
|
Duluth | MN | USA | Posted: 3:48 PM on 07.17.09 |
| ->> The image on ESPN.com is definitely lighter. Compare the sky from the Getty images photography to the one on ESPN.com and you will see. Much of the texture of the sky is gone on the ESPN one and is there on the Getty one. Just looks too me like a byproduct of editing the image on ESPN's side, not a malicious byproduct by any means, but one that just happened in their process. |
|
Ivan Pierre Aguirre, Student/Intern, Assistant
|
El Paso | TX | United States | Posted: 4:06 PM on 07.17.09 |
| ->> Not calling foul or calling for an upheaval! Just saying. Looks like Nike has espn in its front pocket, is all. |
|
Alex Menendez, Photographer
|
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 4:18 PM on 07.17.09 |
->> Yeah well, we all know NIKE!!
Apparently Tiger was getting dunked on by Tom Watson...so....all of these images will dissappear by tonight!!
:) |
|
Joseph Toth, Photographer
|
Cambridge | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 4:38 PM on 07.17.09 |
| ->> Not that I want to make it worse, but it makes me laugh... the picture on CNNSI.com by an AP tog looks like it had the same Nike treatment. |
|
Jim Comeau, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 5:03 PM on 07.17.09 |
| ->> Could it be that Getty darkened the image on its own site and the others are the untouched ones? |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 5:11 PM on 07.17.09 |
->> Ivan, you asked what "you guys" think.
Here's what I think. Not to be harsh but if you don't notice the difference in the sky detail in the two photos (as Chad pointed out) then you need to study Photoshop and some basic photographic principles a little more before questioning someone's photo and/or the editorial use of it. I mean come on. It took about two seconds to see the difference in the photos. A lot of those logos have some reflective qualities in the thread and it would take a marginal amount of light to make them pop out of a black background. It's becoming more and more common for you guys who lack experience to call out seasoned professionals for things you don't understand.
Now onto this...
"Now I am not accusing anybody of anything"
Well when you start a thread like this that's what you're doing.
As I said to begin with folks that start threads like this need to be cautious....if you really have a question maybe, just maybe instead of starting a thread you should email someone and ask the question in private. Because, quite frankly, just by saying the above doesn't give you carte blanche to say whatever you want.
Food for thought? |
|
Joseph Toth, Photographer
|
Cambridge | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 5:25 PM on 07.17.09 |
->> Chuck,
Good points and yes it is obvious what has been done to the pictures. I think the topic could have a better title and focus. Especially since the CNNSI pic slso brings out the Nike Sponsorship logo. It made me chuckle but nothing criminal.
Joe |
|
Jim Comeau, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 5:38 PM on 07.17.09 |
->> Also, there is a difference between stating differences between the physical images themselves, and prospecting on the purpose of said differences, if any.
"Seems like ESPN made it a point to keep (advertise) the NIke logos on the photo of Tiger on espn.com and the not on the original (Getty.com.)"
The statement above is more of an assumption on your part which is beyond the scope of the frame even being identical or not, let alone altered.
The line between suspicion and curiousity is quite fine and suspicion carrys a lot of negative connotation. |
|
Ivan Pierre Aguirre, Student/Intern, Assistant
|
El Paso | TX | United States | Posted: 7:52 PM on 07.17.09 |
->> Whoa whoa. Chuck where in my post did I ever accuse the photographer of wrong doing. I did my homework first and checked out the image on getty.com. And for the record I did see the difference in the sky detail. I clearly ASKED if any of you saw the difference in the images. Now I don't belong to NAPP but .....yes...no......wait ....no I dont agree with your statement of ---"it would take a marginal amount of light to make them pop out of a black background." --- Tiger is pretty much black with very little, if any information. Because you bring up the whites in levels you think its going to suddenly make those logos POP out from all of that black with that great ending result?? MAYBE in RAW and maybe using the lasso. But do we really thing the web people asked getty to send over the RAW(s) instead of just using the jpegs. And I am glad I am not great at PS.... I don't want to be amazing at photoshop....I want to learn and be able to TRY to make great photos. The white in all that black caught my eye. For that I wont apologize. Listen I just I thought it was funny how the Nike logos were amazingly visibly white in all that black. Clearly the photographer made a great image, just thought it was interesting on how espn.com ran it. sigh......
And let me give my deepest apologies for writing a crappy title!! I didnt know we were judged on that too.
And who would have been a good person to send a private email to? Is this not a community of photographers and editors. Isn't this why the community exist, to share and learn. Why wouldn't I ask a group of people that would know best on how to answer my question?? |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 9:04 PM on 07.17.09 |
| ->> Ivan, I truly love how after you post something like that and then you try and find all this wiggle room. Read what Jim said above. And just for the record I had no problem with your title, it was the insinuation...and just so you know I don't think I was the only one who read your post the way I did. But it's okay. This happens once or twice a month here on SS and it's usually from inexperienced beginners. And there's nothing wrong with inexperience but before insinuating there is ANY kind of impropriety whatsoever (especially with an editorial image) think through what you're ready to post. That's all I was trying to get across. Obviously you didn't understand that.... |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Maryville | MO | USA | Posted: 10:00 PM on 07.17.09 |
| ->> Who cares? I don't. |
|
Ivan Pierre Aguirre, Student/Intern, Assistant
|
El Paso | TX | United States | Posted: 11:19 PM on 07.17.09 |
| ->> Chuck, I disagree with you but I still appreciate you post and point of view. I clearly only ask a question and never accuse anybody of wrong doing. Any tidbit on what I said about your PS or private email response....... JIM, If photo X is shot a certain way but runs different on outlet Y. Is it not OK to say that they SEEMED to make it a point to do so?? I mean why else would they do it then. So I see nada wrong with my comment of --Seems like ESPN made it a point to keep (advertise) the NIke logos on the photo of Tiger on espn.com"-- I really doubt they did it JUST to bring up the levels on the sky. But we'll never know. For that reason I can't dismiss your point AND vice versa. And If people read my post the wrong way.... well.... but I digress and respect your comments. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|