| 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
LAT Readers Question Use Of "Fancy Lenses".
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 7:20 PM on 07.28.09 |
->> Interesting reader rep piece in the LA Times:
http://tinyurl.com/lm58ef
I especially love the part about someone that teaches Photoshop at a university obviously not know what long lens compression is... |
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
 |
Sycamore | IL | USA | Posted: 7:44 PM on 07.28.09 |
->> Hmmm the photographer Mark Boster told skeptical readers that "The picture was made with the following settings, 800mm lens at f/11, shot on ISO 400" in order to "compress the view."
However, he neglected to reveal the shutter speed used... he is obviously covering something up. |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 7:50 PM on 07.28.09 |
| ->> This is one reason everything I shoot for the newspaper in raw and keep all of it archived, even though my employer doesn't require it. If I ever get accused of manipulating an image, I want to be able to have the raw file instantly available. |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 7:54 PM on 07.28.09 |
| ->> Confusing first sentence. Sorry. It should have read: This is one reason that I shoot all of my newspaper assignments in RAW and keep every single image archived, even though my employer doesn't require it. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 8:08 PM on 07.28.09 |
->> Interesting how TV viewers never question the daily use of reverse-angle edits that make it look like the reporter is listening to the victim, or the staged "putting away the milk in the kitchen" footage, or the assembly of elements from multiple locations edited together to make it look like everything is in the same place.
Is the bar so low in that world that everyone already assumes it's faked? Or is it because the pictures are moving and therefore not as easy to pick apart pixel-by-pixel? |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 8:38 PM on 07.28.09 |
->> Great point.
Setting up/staging shots, manipulating scenes, telling subjects what to say is SOP in some circles with video and very seldom questioned.
A still photographer uses an 800mm lens and a bunch of readers acuse him of digitally maniplulating a photograph.
I see a big debate. |
|
Michael Durisseau, Photographer, Assistant
|
Santa Fe/Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 9:00 PM on 07.28.09 |
->> This kind of stuff bothers me...mostly comes from people who don't really understand what we do, or haven't ever done the job. So, you teach Photoshop...and you don't know what lens compression is?
I do have to say that the photographer was spot-on with his explanations.
Mr. McNamara, I am doing the same thing you're doing...keeping all of my original files... |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 9:29 PM on 07.28.09 |
->> I thought my lenses were expensive and heavy. Turns out they are "fancy"
Unfortunately a few bad apples have caused folks to start questioning everything they see in the media. Used to be people turned to the local paper for clarity on issues and now they see them as being manipulative. |
|
Will Powers, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 10:21 PM on 07.28.09 |
| ->> Like the article says, pictures are coming from a variety of sources. Ethics isn't taught in the kindergarten photography classes, just how to hold the camera still when they push the button unless they get IS lenses. Photoshop like software is sold cheaply, as are cameras that know when to take the photo. No real skill involved. You can put a ball in the photo, too. No wonder the readers are skeptical, they are doing it to their own photos. |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 10:37 PM on 07.28.09 |
->> Michael McNamara,
Are you suggesting that RAW files cannot be manipulated, or that they are in some way less susceptible to manipulation that JPEGs out of the camera? |
|
David Manning, Photographer
|
Athens | GA | | Posted: 10:39 PM on 07.28.09 |
| ->> I will gladly take some of those "fancy lenses" readers are complaining about, especially the 400mm and 600mm variety. |
|
Kevin Leas, Photographer, Assistant
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 10:50 PM on 07.28.09 |
| ->> Samuel - to the best of my knowledge, a RAW file cannot be altered and saved in the same format - it's been years since I've shot them myself though, so I'm not sure that still holds true. If you're shooting in JPEG, what's to stop you from editing the heck out of it and resaving it with the same name, claiming it's the "raw" shot? If a RAW file can't be altered and saved in the same format, then clearly it'd be a more reputable image in case the integrity of a shot was ever called into question. |
|
Andrew Link, Photographer
|
Sheldon | IA | USA | Posted: 10:58 PM on 07.28.09 |
| ->> I guess I will have to identify if I used a wide or long lens in my captions from now on so my ethics aren't questioned. |
|
Jeff Jones, Photo Editor
|
Gallup | NM | USA | Posted: 11:25 PM on 07.28.09 |
| ->> might need to start identifying what brand of camera, what depth of field setting (since that affects the image), what was outside of the frame when you took the photo and what you had for breakfast that gave you that skewed perspective. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
McCall | ID | US | Posted: 12:51 AM on 07.29.09 |
->> RAW files can be altered... It just takes a lot more work. Canon uses the "add original decision data" custom function and sells a piece of software which allows RAW files to be verified.
Who knows how well that's been tested, however... In computer security something is only secure until someone finds out how to get around it (and it's usually the bad guy first!) |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 7:39 AM on 07.29.09 |
->> Kevin,
RAW files are like any other computer files, and capable of being manipulated. The fact that it may not be as easy as opening, manipulating and saving a jpeg in photoshop doesn't give RAW files some special status.
As Israel points out, Canon added some verification data to their files (Nikon has Image Authentication software that will read authentication data in the file and determine if a JPEG, TIFF or RAW file was modified after it was taken).
Even this technology is capable of being circumvented, although it requires a bit more work. A developer who reverse engineers the camera's firmware ought to be able to determine the algorithm used for image authentication, and replicate that in software.
The notion that a RAW file cannot be altered and saved is about as credible as the notion that the RAW file records exactly what the camera's sensor "saw." The truth of the matter is that cameras do a fair amount of processing, including interpolation, in order to arrive at the image that is ultimately stored in a RAW file. |
|
Jack Howard, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Central Jersey | NJ | USA | Posted: 11:37 AM on 07.29.09 |
->> Photographers are only a percentage of Photoshop users. Graphic Designers, animators, web producers, and on and on use tools in this powerful raster-based imaging program for many means and purposes, many of which are for the powerful image manipulations it is capable of, when there isn't a set of ethical confinements one is working within. I don't know this instructor's specialty, but I reckon it's not in Photoshop for Photojournalists.
~~~~~~~~
It'd be like a bunch of poets saying they can't believe someone teaches MS Word for reporters but doesn't understand the difference between dactylic hexameter and the Shakespearean sonnet. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 11:51 AM on 07.29.09 |
->> A developer who reverse engineers the camera's firmware ought to be able to determine the algorithm used for image authentication, and replicate that in software.
If the method is properly implemented using public key cryptographic methods, you can create a secure verification system. Unfortunately, all of the current methods of image verification rely on closed, proprietary systems that are not open to critique. Each manufacturer has their own way of doing it (sound familiar?), and each one makes money selling the software to implement it. As a result, there is currently no good way of implementing a verification model, and few people do it.
What is really needed is a universal image verification standard based on open standards that do not rely on custom, proprietary software for implementation. As we know with the current RAW debacle, this isn't likely to happen anytime soon. |
|
Tom Knier, Photographer
|
Lancaster | PA | USA | Posted: 12:38 PM on 07.29.09 |
->> "Setting up/staging shots, manipulating scenes, telling subjects what to say is SOP in some circles with video and very seldom questioned."
Bert, it may be SOP in "some circles" (the reality TV world), but television news is not the place where this should be happening. I am a TV photojournalist, and have never done any of these things. Staging is against what I stand for. Sure, the "seated interview" could be considered staging because it's an unnatural place for a person to be, but is essential for the telling of a story. That is the extent of staging for me.
The NPPA Code of Ethics isn't just for still shooters; it's for all visual journalists, and those of us who consider it (photojournalism) a profession and not just a "job" are adamant about the integrity of what we do.
That being said, though, it's sad that people don't question video more often, as it would hold those responsible for manipulation more accountable |
|
David Gordon, Photographer
|
Somerville | MA | United States | Posted: 1:11 PM on 07.29.09 |
->> I don't know about the rest of you, but I simply don't have the time to alter my images. There are VERY few assignments (that I cover anyway) that don't need to be (at a minimum) posted online ASAP (ie: ten minutes after the even has started). I spend more time writing captions than color corrections.
The day I am questioned for doctoring an image, I'll point to the time it was posted online. (and yes, I do save my original files... who doesn't?) |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 1:52 PM on 07.29.09 |
->> I honestly didn't know that there were ways to alter your RAW files without saving them in a different format, but with the amount of work that we hand in on a daily basis, I don't have time to unethically work a photo in PhotoShop and then try to cover my tracks.
I've always figured that if somebody wanted to question what I was doing, I could have access to every file taken at a shoot. So while I may have time to play with one or two files, I'm not going to have time to go back and alter literally hundreds of pictures. |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 2:21 PM on 07.29.09 |
->> Unless the base math for photography has changed and the Sunny F/16 does not work anymore....ISO 400 at F/11...looks like 1/200 (or close enough) for me.
Living the life I do I get to see tons of TV people and quite a few others with questionable ethics. I shoot a bunch of horse racing and it is nothing for racing photographers to try to "paint out" rails and bothersome things like the nose of a horse.
Here is one example that ended up on ESPN ( http://tinyurl.com/m8vpcj ) - portrayed as a piece of photojournalism. Hey, you want to do something for an ad, well, that is up to you. For something that is going to be used as journalism - the image is the image.
Of course there is the old argument that doing levels and sharpening is manipulating. And TV folks, oh my, I have seen TV reporters on shooting scenes tell people what to say and how to feel. I have seen a TV crew show up late and have someone re-enact something.
Oh would Cliff Edom and Angus McDougall be stomping mad. |
|
Colin Heyburn, Photographer
|
ARMAGH | NI | United Kingdom | Posted: 3:41 PM on 07.29.09 |
| ->> Like a lot of photographers I do not have the time to alter images save for the basic editing functions prior to transmission. I do keep the orginal file after processing if nothing else to challenge thieves. |
|
David Brooks, Photographer
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 3:41 PM on 07.29.09 |
->> "I hate the public. The public is stupid."
One of the funniest quotes I've ever heard- from the NBC show, "Parks and Recreation"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uji2SY00g7A |
|
Michael Muszynski, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 5:33 PM on 07.29.09 |
->> For what it's worth, the article does not mention that the Photoshop teacher took issue with compression. In fact, it mentions specifically that this is NOT the photo:
"One particularly adamant questioning of **another photograph published earlier this year** came from an online reader who said she teaches Photoshop at a continuing education department of a university in another state. Even after being assured by editors who investigated the original digital files, the reader was unconvinced that the image hadn't been manipulated." (emphasis mine)
Please, please, please read carefully before you make judgements about people. |
|
Michael Moriatis, Photographer
|
Santa Barbara | CA | USA | Posted: 5:49 PM on 07.29.09 |
| ->> Nikon Capture NX2 allows Raw NEF files to be saved as NEF. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 6:02 PM on 07.29.09 |
| ->> Tom, I admire what you said, but I too will for the record say you are certainly in the minority of television shooters. I'm really sorry but I've just seen too many guys (and women) videographers set up their shots. Pretty much on a daily basis at news assignments. It's still a totally different set of ethics for the still people and the video. That's why we're all having trouble doing video, it's next to impossible to shoot a breaking news event and stills at the same time unless it's something that lasting for more than a couple of hours. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 8:28 PM on 07.29.09 |
->> Chuck. Saw one this morning. A video cameraman getting his camera set up on a puddle on the sidewalk and then instructing his assistant, intern, producer whatever she was on where to step to get the right look and splash.
I'm sure on the air it looked like a stranger just happened to pass by the lens and step in that puddle at that moment. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 8:32 PM on 07.29.09 |
->> Bert,
Of course she doesn't know what compression is, she's an "artist".
In a way, challenging us IS good. We can explain how the image was made; more importantly, we can explain the standards real photojournalists subscribe to.
Having dealt with the public for most of my life; it's fair to tell you, some people will never be satisfied and would grumble; those type of people would be upset if, offered the job as the son of God, would complain that they didn't get the top job.
Don't worry about them.
M |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer
 |
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 9:43 AM on 08.28.09 |
->> I've looked through the old threads, and can't find what I'm looking for. I've been having a discussion with a relative as to what a photographer can and can't do, when shooting news photographs. For example, he knows the photo can't be manipulated, but he feels many news photos are "set up" by the photographer, with the subjects posing for the camera.
Anyway, is there one generally accepted source of information that clearly defines what a photojournalist should and should not do when taking "news photos"?
As I see it, a photographer can do anything he wants to do, but if he manipulates a picture it's no longer a "photograph" but is now a "photo illustration". I shoot for magazines, not newspapers, and while I always try to follow the rules of "ethics" as I understand them, sometimes it's very hard, as a certain types of photos are typically "posed".
Another thing I wonder about is HDR photos. I know they're not allowed, as they come from multiple negatives combined into one final result, but if done properly, they're sometimes a more accurate representation of what was in front of the camera than a "normal" photo - they just make up for technical limitations in our camera gear. When/if we get to the point where it's all done "in camera" (you press the button, the camera takes five images, and they're electronically combined into one high dynamic range photo, which becomes the single output from the camera), would this be ethically allowed as a "photograph"? |
|
Adam Vogler, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 8:51 PM on 08.28.09 |
->> Adam,
HDR is actually more like your eye/brain sees the world. That is, with detail in the deepest shadows and the brightest highlights.
--Mark |
|
Adam Vogler, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Kansas City | Mo. | USA | Posted: 11:14 PM on 08.28.09 |
->> Mark,
This is true. I should have been more clear.
I think using an HDR program on a SINGLE RAW file would be okay, after all when you get down to it it's really just a fancy way of dodging and burning.
It's combining separate images for a news assignment where you'd be getting into a problem area.
For the record this is simply the way I do things and the rationale why. I am in no way commenting or criticizing the way anyone else's ethics or the way they may or may not use HDR. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 1:20 AM on 08.29.09 |
->> As far as I know, there is no way to use an HDR program on a single raw file, as it would require the same scene to be photographed at different exposures.
If the highlights for example are "blown out", I don't think a raw file allows the photographer to compensate for that and bring back the missing detail.
It's true that it's "just a fancy way of dodging and burning", but apparently film has a greater dynamic range than digital, so the electronic "dodging and burning" won't work that well from a single image.
If you use a D3, and take five images in the automatic "bracketing" mode, it will do all of this in let's say 1/2 second, with essentially the same identical image at five different exposures. The HDR software would merge all this data into one final image. Is the result going to be called a photograph, or a photo illustration? |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 9:05 AM on 08.29.09 |
->> Michael,
There is a technique for using an HDR-like merge on a single image (preferably a RAW file). Using ACR, you open the same image three different times, each with different ACR settings (as you might expect, each time the settings are changed to capture the highlights, the shadows, one the midtones). The three different exposures of the same image are then merged. The method has some obvious drawbacks to HDR with multiple exposures, but it does result in an image with somewhat more detail in the highlights and shadows than than you would be able to obtain with dodging and burning.
To address your earlier point, however, there is a good reason for the journalist to avoid manipulation. Sure, you can call it a "photo illustration," but you run the risk that a publisher will fail to clearly identify the image as a "photo illustration." Ultimately, your concern as a journalist should be maintaining integrity and the public trust. Anything with the potential of eroding the public trust or calling into question your integrity should be avoided.
A perfect example of this is the recent incident where Hollywood police were suspended after arranging, on videotape, to falsify police reports to shift blame for an accident from the officer responsible to the victim. The repercussions of their actions--namely, the violation of public trust and damage to their integrity--will linger long after the incident itself; the lack of honesty will be raised again and again in every case where the officers were involved. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 10:46 AM on 08.29.09 |
| ->> Samuel, that (the police) is an excellent example of losing trust. It only takes a few minutes (of viewing and digesting a photo), later you find out the photo is a fake or manipulated and the trust can be gone for years if not forever. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 11:49 AM on 08.29.09 |
->> I guess it all comes down to what is meant by "manipulation". I had a strange experience a year ago on a trip overseas. Someone I met took a photo of a room that was mostly dark, with a window looking out over the surrounding area. I saw the finished photo, and said it wasn't "real", that it looked more like a painting than a photograph. So, the manager of the building and I went upstairs to look at the scene that had been photographed.
The bottom line is that this image actually was pretty accurate. If you looked out the window, or around the room, what was in the image matched what we were looking at. It was a rather strange experience.
We then showed the photo to several people who worked there, and all said it looked "fake".
Because of the software that had been used for the tone mapping (Photomatix), the image did have a "dreamy" quality, and to me it did look more like a painting than a photograph, but standing in the spot where the person had taken it, it did show things reasonably accurately.
-------------------------------------------
I've seen another photograph of someone in a room, looking out the window. The room wasn't lit very well, and the image of the fellow and the room looked good, but everything out the window was "burnt out". It was all just a white color, with hardly any detail. The photographer also shot the same picture using HDR, and suddenly all the detail in every part of the image appeared the way it really looked. The room detail showed up even more, as it was no longer so dark, and all the detail out the window also showed up perfectly.
I know the HDR image is technically "manipulated", but the bottom line is it did a better job of showing what someone would see, were they standing there, then the single-exposure image. HDR does a better job of showing what our own eyes see, than a normal digital (or film) image.
-------------------------------------------
Sometimes, if you try to get a photograph to match what you think you saw with your eyes, the limitations of photography don't allow you to do so without using special "tricks".
Which is the "reality" - what you saw with your eyes, or what the camera is capable of seeing? |
|
Adam Vogler, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Kansas City | Mo. | USA | Posted: 1:08 PM on 08.29.09 |
->> I think a few PJ's have used the rationale of "that's the way I saw the scene, I just changed the image to fit it" as they were being shown the way to the door after getting caught.
Personally, I'm very conservative with the adjustments I make to my news images making only slight adjustments to the exposure, color, contrast and saturation. I choose to err on the side of the original frame rather than chance pushing it to far.
HDR is a great tool, the front page feature a few days ago was a great set of portraits using it. I think its fine to use it for illustrations, portraits, etc. if properly labeled but combining two or more images, even if taken a fraction of a second apart, for a news image is a manipulation, even if it more accurately shows the scene. |
|
Wally Nell, Photographer
 |
CAIRO | EG | EGYPT | Posted: 4:52 PM on 08.29.09 |
| ->> Speaking of HDR, there is a product called Redynamix that will simulate HDR using a single image and it does a pretty good job of it. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 12:15 AM on 08.31.09 |
->> Thanks for the information. I found this website (http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html) which has a lot of information about the product. I guess I'll have to try out the demo version and see how well it works, but I can't imagine it working well enough with only a single image.
Earlier today, I also found a fascinating video about Ansel Adams, including a discussion with him. It can be found at http://www.fastcompany.tv/video/michael-adams-yosemite if anyone would like to check it out.
If someone as great as Ansel Adams states clearly that he was trying to produce a photo that reflects the way he visualized something, rather than what was there before his eyes, that changes my whole attitude on these things. In addition, apparently Ansel Adams did only half the work in taking the photo - he then spent forever in his darkroom getting the image to look the way he wanted it to.
I'll accept that for a "news" photo, you can't manipulate things, but on the other hand, these are photos that I'm thinking of for myself - and to me, I'd like the image to represent what I "felt" (or to use Ansel's word, visualized) when I took the photo.
Ansel was creating "art", not "news", but that's what I would also like to do. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|