| 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
What the ...?
Matthew Ginn, Photographer
|
Craig Mitchelldyer, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 5:27 PM on 05.19.10 |
| ->> wow. that is seriously dumb. |
|
Robert Seale, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 5:44 PM on 05.19.10 |
->> Geri Ferrara, Editor
editor@dominionpost.com |
|
Jeff Lewis, Photographer
|
Long Beach | CA | USA | Posted: 5:57 PM on 05.19.10 |
->> Well, I'm going to take the newspapers side just for the sake of the argument and furthering this discussion and possibly making us think about this a little bit....
The problem here is that they took out three people from the picture. The did put illustration at the bottom to let us know that it is not a real, as it happened picture. The three in the picture did violate their rule on printing candidates during an election season.
The picture is a posed picture. If it were a picture of some event or something going on more than people posed, I'd have a big problem with that. I don't in any way believe you should add smoke or a ball to a picture to add to the impact but if it is a posed picture, I really don't see the problem. Its set up from the beginning.
The photographer probably could have re-posed the picture and took another one minus the three people since it was posed, then it would be real but its still posed and not any kind of photo journalism. The people being removed did not change any of what the story was, it just followed the papers rules about publishing pictures of candidates.
How many of you guys have shot a portrait and added light or cleaned up blemishes or anything? Even though this is removing people, if its a portrait and does not change the story, and illustration is used on the picture caption, and the paper agreed with it, shouldn't it be ok?
Jeff |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 6:13 PM on 05.19.10 |
| ->> How common is it for papers to have such a policy? Sounds a bit...stupid to me. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 7:39 PM on 05.19.10 |
->> "The picture is a posed picture."
You know this how??? Maybe I missed that, but I didn't read that the photographer had posed anyone.
Having shot a Governor at a signing I can tell you that in my case Dukakis just looked up with the on lookers in the background and smiled as we hammered away 5 or 6 frames. My frames looked just about the same except on Tri-X.
Just because it LOOKS posed doesn't mean that the photographer(s) posed or coached the moment. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 7:57 PM on 05.19.10 |
| ->> I wonder if it would be okay for them to make up a quote to fit their policy as well? |
|
Adam Vogler, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Kansas City | Mo. | USA | Posted: 8:22 PM on 05.19.10 |
| ->> If the photo violates their rules it very simple, you don't run it. You don't use Photoshop to create the reality you wish you had. You can't just label something a photo illustration and then do whatever the hell you want to it. That is an egregious violation of ethics. Where I've worked we've gone by the rule that it should be plainly obvious to the casual viewer that a photo illustration is a manipulated image for it to be ethical. |
|
Kohl Threlkeld, Student/Intern
|
Bowling Green | KY | USA | Posted: 10:05 PM on 05.19.10 |
->> Jeff,
I know you say your taking the side of the newspaper for arguments sake but the problem with your argument is that your talking about a newspaper. Newspapers are editorial and therefore in an ethical category sort of their own. A picture is never altered, posed or candid. Blemishes are never removed, no matter how bad that zit on her nose was. And whether or not removing the people changed, "any of what the story was" is a moot point because you simply cannot alter a photograph like that for a newspaper.
You asked, "How many of you guys have shot a portrait and added light or cleaned up blemishes or anything?"
If by "you guys" you mean newspaper photographers, then the answer should be none.
Also, you said it's "posed and not any kind of photo journalism."
Whether a photo is posed or not doesn't determine whether its journalism. The publication printing it does, in this case a newspaper.
Kohl |
|
Mike Ullery, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Piqua | OH | USA | Posted: 10:42 PM on 05.19.10 |
->> What about the fact that the paper altered a photographer's work without his permission? I don't know how the paper acquired the image but I doubt the photographer even dreamed that a newspaper, of all places, would alter his image.
Ms. Ferrara should be fired for blatant ethic violations. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:09 AM on 05.20.10 |
| ->> Jeff, what in the holy hell of God's name are you talking about? Taking the "newspaper's" side? That is total idiocy. Sorry brother but I have to say NO reputable newspaper I know of would ever, let me reiterate, EVER remove content from a photo. did I mention EVER? You are only taking the side of the lame brain moron editor who decided to remove those people in the photo. I sincerely hope she is fired. It would only be fair. I bet a winning lotto ticket if a photographer on the staff of that publication altered a photo and it was "discovered" they would be fired on the spot for ethics violations. but you have ms. nitwit do it and she thinks it's ok? okay sorry, just took a blood pressure pill to calm myself down.....thanks mr. seale, I'll be sending the inappropriate email to that moron. geez and we wonder why the business is swirling down the drain? for god's sake she's the friggin EDITOR. |
|
Tami Chappell, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Atlanta | Ga | USA | Posted: 12:27 AM on 05.20.10 |
| ->> amen brother chuck...couldn't of said it any better. No ethics whatsoever for the "editor". |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 12:27 AM on 05.20.10 |
->> I'm sitting here trying not to laugh.. HOW STUPID CAN YOU GET?
Crying is the alternative..... |
|
Adam Vogler, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Kansas City | Mo. | USA | Posted: 12:54 AM on 05.20.10 |
->> The publisher, David A. Raese's email administration@dominionpost.com
Ordinarily I wouldn't think of going through someone's boss but this one has really got me ticked. Barring a REALLY good response to the email I sent Dave is gonna get my two cents as well. I think what grates on me the most is that she actually tried to defend what they did. If I was a shooter at a paper that did this I'd be rethinking my employment status lousy job market (there's an understatement) and all. I just don't think I could work for an organization that would do this. Thanks for bringing this to our attention Matt and thanks to all who have taken the time to email their outrage at this. |
|
Mike Janes, Photographer
|
Attica | NY | USA | Posted: 1:11 AM on 05.20.10 |
| ->> This sounds like an editor trying to alter the political landscape by not including them in there, it's news, they're politicians involved in the bill, taking them out is plain out STUPIDITY and she should be in the unemployment line IMPO! |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:36 AM on 05.20.10 |
| ->> wow, an inappropriate? really? have the guts to email me or call me out and tell me WHY you thought my response was inappropriate. gutless. sorry, now you can flag me as "huh" or "off topic" |
|
Dave Prelosky, Photographer
|
Lower Burrell | Pa | US | Posted: 2:06 AM on 05.20.10 |
->> As I read this thread through, I was tempted to take a shot at hilbilly ethics or some such, but Chuck has expressed what I was thinking in no uncertain terms.
If you think cut and paste belongs anywhere but on a copy editors desktop, I'd suggest you turn in your keys and credentials and explore career possibilities in the PR world |
|
David Shea, Photographer
|
Riverside | CA | USA | Posted: 2:11 AM on 05.20.10 |
| ->> Kinda curious what would happen if President Obama came through town during a 2012 campaign swing, would they cut him out of all the photographs and cite the same asinine policy? |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 2:29 AM on 05.20.10 |
->> "But Joel Beeson says it’s becoming much easier to alter photographs.
"Because they are digital, I’m assuming that this was a digital photograph, there’s no negative to go back to. It’s all logarithms inside of a computer and your camera," he said. "
Kinda wondering if spell check or sloppy note taking didn't get them here - I'm sure he said (or meant) to say, "algorithms". |
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
|
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 2:52 AM on 05.20.10 |
->> I thought Joseph Stalin died a few years ago.
Really?
I mean, really?
Jeff Lewis, thanks for playing "Devil's Advocate." Your devil is still an idiot.
I do respect you and what some of what you have had to say in the past, and I will chalk up your comment to trying to further the conversation.
Given that, your position/argument is so flawed it only deserves derision. If you don't think so, well... I'll shut up and leave it at that. There is no position on this argument other than right and wrong. It's about as a black and white a situation as we have had in a while. |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 3:00 AM on 05.20.10 |
| ->> Too bad SNL finished last week for the season, I would love to have Amy and Seth REALLY this one! |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 3:39 AM on 05.20.10 |
->> "How many of you guys have shot a portrait and added light or cleaned up blemishes or anything?"
Jeff,
This would get me fired. So, no, I never have. And anyone working for any legitimate news organization shouldn't be either. Like my good friend Sam said, it's a simple black and white situation. |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 7:26 AM on 05.20.10 |
| ->> Maybe Jay Leno should have a shot at this on Monday night... vanishing politicians? |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 7:49 AM on 05.20.10 |
| ->> I think, while they were at it, they should have fixed that guy's tie, too. I mean, look at that thing -- it reminds me of one of those giant, whirly pop suckers you'd get at a carnival! |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 8:59 AM on 05.20.10 |
->> If they don't include photos of politicians during election cycles then I guess those politicians would be forced to buy ad space if they want their pic in the paper.
Not that I'm sticking up for the editor in question but I wonder how much, if any, of the decision to alter the image could have been influenced by the ad department.
Naw...I'm sure that's not the case though because everyone knows that the combining of newsroom and advertising departments would never be the cause of such problem. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 9:33 AM on 05.20.10 |
->> Whenever I see one of these stories about an over-the-top retouched photo reaching the mainstream, I often wonder how many other photos are out there already that nobody knows about.
This one was an easy catch because there were multiple people at a high profile event who knew what happened, so it was almost stupid that it was even tried. But there are a lot of situations where independent verification is unlikely or impossible. Detecting a fake photo is becoming more difficult from a technical standpoint as retouch tools become more sophisticated. Most of the fakes discovered recently have only come to light because of obvious, gross mistakes. It's logical to assume there are others out there without gross mistakes but similarly misleading alterations.
The only real way to fix this issue is to implement technical means to verify authenticity at the camera level. The first step is to have manufacturers agree to an open, cross brand compatible authentication schema. This is a tall order, but if professional organizations champion the cause, doable.
It would be good if the NPPA were to take up this cause beyond their much-touted "code of ethics". That's a great start, but it's not enough in large, diverse workflows with images coming from lots of different sources.
The NPPA could develop a certification program whereby newspapers and other media outlets could have their workflow audited to show that they have a process in place for authenticity verification of digital imagery. The process would start with technical verification - either using existing tools or by pressuring camera manufacturers to adopt an opensource alternative. Beyond technical, the certification process would include auditing backend procedures to make sure no alteration occurs - intentional or otherwise - along the production chain.
If organizations pass, they are allowed to use the logo in marketing and promotional materials. "NPPA Certified Authentic".
It is a difficult problem, and one that will grow worse over time. A solution will take time, but if historical record is important to a society, it's a worthwhile effort. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 10:06 AM on 05.20.10 |
->> As NPPA's Ethics and Standards chair John Long says: "A lie is a lie" no matter how you label it, credit it or disclaim it. Journalists and newspapers rely on their credibility and doing something like this undercuts that ... perhaps critically.
If you have a policy of not showing photos of candidates standing for election then either find another photo or don't run one.
Sean |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
| | | Posted: 10:40 AM on 05.20.10 |
->> Jeff
A) I cannot believe you're taking newspaper's side in this
B) The photo is a handout from the State, not created by the newspaper its self
C) I cannot believe you've sided with the newspaper!
I am trying very hard not to make some wisecrack about West Virginia, but this lapse in ethics is just astounding. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
| | | Posted: 10:42 AM on 05.20.10 |
->> Kohl,
You wrote "You asked, "How many of you guys have shot a portrait and added light or cleaned up blemishes or anything?"
If by "you guys" you mean newspaper photographers, then the answer should be none."
You plan on working for a newspaper, wire service, magazine and never using a flash, or multi-light strobe set up to shoot a portrait? You plan on shooting high school basketball in a cave without any added light?
You plan on shooting a Sunday Magazine cover for a daily paper without some touch up to that image?
There is a small window of grey area where not everything is as black & white as you make it ... and it is all ethical. |
|
Jeff Lewis, Photographer
|
Long Beach | CA | USA | Posted: 10:55 AM on 05.20.10 |
->> I was merely trying to start a discussion on why it was wrong since everybody here including myself thinks its wrong. I know its very unethical. We would all get fired if we did that to a photograph so why does it make it ok for a newspaper to do that..... It really does not.
I am still trying to figure out why I got 6 huh's. I said at the beginning of my post that I was going to take the other side just for arguments sake. 100% of everybody who posted obviously are on the side of not removing the people. Somebody had to take the other side. The way you learn is by asking questions and questioning everything and if everybody is taking one side, how can we ever learn and further our knowledge about our craft?
We need to stop bashing and huh-ing each other and sometimes see the point in each post before hitting the Huh button. I know this is a hot topic with all the altering of images becoming easier and harder to find but there are two sides to a story and to learn, somebody, sometimes, needs to take the other side for arguments sake.
Jeff |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
| | | Posted: 11:22 AM on 05.20.10 |
->> Jeff
I did not "Huh" you ... I was however very surprised to see a Devils Advocate in this discussion. While there is some grey in what we do, such as using flashes, or setting up portraits, there are also some very hard line ethics we all must follow ... and removing politicians from a bill signing is certainly one of those hardline black & white issues. |
|
Jeff Lewis, Photographer
|
Long Beach | CA | USA | Posted: 12:07 PM on 05.20.10 |
->> Steven,
I was not saying you in particular put "Huh," I was writing my post as you posted your post.
Jeff |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Indiana | IN | USA | Posted: 12:50 PM on 05.20.10 |
->> Wow, for once Chuck and I are in agreement.
Mr. Lewis, for the sake of argument, you have a very poor argument. The editor's decision to alter the photo cuts to the heart of credibility for all news outlets across the planet. People rely on us to present the facts as they are and this includes news photos, and that includes grip and grins.
Our newspaper has a policy regarding politicians running for office as well. It goes into effect 30 days before the election. We just don't publish the photo unless it was a spot news event and we have no control over who ends up in the frame. To purposely remove people from images like this editor did is a fireable offense in my book. |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 1:03 PM on 05.20.10 |
->> The paper I work for does not run photos of people running for political office for a period of two weeks before the election, but I want to be clear that we would NOT digitally remove people from a photo.
We try to keep everything even and report elections fairly. Each candidate can submit a photo and resume that we will run, just not within that two week window.
The policy has been in effect since before I started here, but from what I understand it was put in place because incumbents would try to get in as many news photos as they could in the weeks approaching election day. This made it look as if the paper was giving the preferential treatment to incumbents. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 1:32 PM on 05.20.10 |
->> So Bob 9 days before the election a candidate gets busted on some major charge..... you guys DON'T shoot the perp walk or run a photo of the person in cuffs in the dock?
I've never paid it much mind...... I'll have to watch the papers around me and see if the candidates fall from the pages a few weeks prior to elections. |
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
|
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 1:43 PM on 05.20.10 |
| ->> just another example of how competent photo editing is considered an expensive luxury as newspapers cut cut and cut again. Nobody around to make a competent argument to the genius from the word side who thought this was a good idea. |
|
Mike Carlson, Photographer
|
Bayonet Point | FL | USA | Posted: 1:52 PM on 05.20.10 |
->> At the risk of my pumping up my own "Huh"s, another twist to the ethical argument. Now, like Jeff, I'd like to state that I have my own opinion on this already (to not modify the original), but want to throw this out for others' discussion/education.
Obviously Photoshoping out the two politicians is egregious manipulation, but the third politician was simply cropped out. Keeping in mind the paper's policy on not giving politicians face time, combined with the ethics of reporting a scene fairly...would there be the same outcry if they had simply cropped out people who were in an original handout photo, if its composition lent itself to such a crop? |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 1:52 PM on 05.20.10 |
| ->> we don't have any "policy" on politicians in photos ... we have a general discussion in the assignment editing process about being sure we have balance in our coverage of politicians during election season. Since we don't generally cover staged photo ops of almost any sort, and it's pretty easy with an intelligent photojournalist behind the camera to keep politicians from being in the paper unnecessarily, we seem to do alright. We get more complaints from the wives of congressman about goofy smiles getting in print than we do about any lack of balance in our photo report. Any black and white policy like that is just asking for trouble. Of course so is using handout photos. |
|
Wesley R. Bush, Photographer
 |
Nashville | TN | U.S. | Posted: 2:01 PM on 05.20.10 |
->> Mission Statement of The Dominion Post
The West Virginia Newspaper Publishing Company is dedicated to providing a high quality, profitable, daily community newspaper where our employees are recognized as our most valuable asset.
At The Dominion Post, we publish products that our readers and advertisers find informative, useful, accurate, reliable and enjoyable.
We are committed to progress, tradition, integrity, growth and excellence, with the goal of maintaining and strengthening our place as the dominant media in Monongalia and Preston counties. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 2:12 PM on 05.20.10 |
| ->> +1 Joe Cavaretta |
|
Dave Breen, Photographer
|
Somerset | PA | USA | Posted: 2:23 PM on 05.20.10 |
->> The guy on the far right of the original photo was cropped out, while the other two people were digitally-removed. Yes, there's a difference -- but how much of one?
An original photo of a situation defines reality at the moment it was taken, but the photographer has always made the decision of how to present it, thus introducing a bit of subjectivity. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Matthew Ginn, Photographer
|
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 3:07 PM on 05.20.10 |
| ->> I wonder what they would have done if the Governor had been a up for reelection. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 3:12 PM on 05.20.10 |
| ->> Matt, that so illustrates exactly how silly the policy is and the implementation thereof ... |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 5:28 PM on 05.20.10 |
| ->> I just saw this thread and read through it. Regardless of his opinion on this subject I think it's truly sad to read some of the responses toward Jeff L. In this so-called SS.com "community" I think it's pathetic that members openly call each other "idiotic" and accuse them of having "poor judgment" when they're simply trying to have a discussion. Instead of constructively trying educate our fellow members there's often the tendency to gang up on someone in a pack mentality when there's blood in the water. It's responses like some in this thread and in the thread raking through the mud the photog who wore the wrong raincoat at the wrong football practice that make me embarrassed to be associated with this site. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 8:32 PM on 05.20.10 |
->> good point Bradley. I generally try to ignore that lowest common denominator when it surfaces, but I think you're right to call it out.
we can disagree without acting like 12-year olds. |
|
Michael Durisseau, Photographer, Assistant
|
Santa Fe/Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 8:38 PM on 05.20.10 |
| ->> She is a fridiot...and the policy is poor. The editor should be fired. |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 11:47 PM on 05.20.10 |
| ->> Eric, I don't know. It's never come up. The Editor would have to make a decision. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Indiana | IN | USA | Posted: 12:15 PM on 05.21.10 |
->> Brad, I agree with you in most cases. In this case, we need to call a spade a spade. The implications of the editor's actions are far reaching and Jeff L.'s comments, whether they be for the sake of discussion or not are just way off target. To even suggest there is an argument or discussion in defense of this alteration is crazy. As I said, it cuts to the heart of our credibility as journalists. It makes our job more difficult and I hate having to work harder when it's unnecessary.
We're talking about the reputation of photographers everywhere being tarnished over the actions of one person. And this isn't the only time. I have people approach me all the time asking me to remove this or that in Photoshop, because they have seen or heard of being done before. So I have to explain to them my code of ethics which they don't really have a grasp on. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 2:18 PM on 05.21.10 |
| ->> Jeff - While I completely agree with the points you're making, I think we as a community should be capable of making those points without resorting to belittling name calling and acting, as Sean so eloquently put it, like 12-year-olds. |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|