| 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
Tampered photo cover shot
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
Daniel Putz, Photographer
 |
Owings Mills | MD | USA | Posted: 1:45 PM on 07.05.10 |
| ->> ffs. |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 4:38 PM on 07.05.10 |
| ->> Holy Content-Aware Fill Batman!!!! CS5 is awesome, just awesome. Except...for news? Not exactly. |
|
Svein Ove Ekornesvaag, Photographer
|
Aalesund | Møre og Romsdal | Norway | Posted: 5:04 PM on 07.05.10 |
->> This just makes me embarrased...
By the way a perfect example of those pictures that are almost perfect except that little something you didn't want to be there that doesn't make that almost perfect picture more than average. |
|
Michael Muszynski, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 9:12 PM on 07.05.10 |
->> The editor serves up a pretty lame explanation:
"I asked for Ms. Randolph to be removed because I wanted readers to focus on Mr. Obama, not because I wanted to make him look isolated. That wasn’t the point of the story."
Still, at first glance, that is the message of the photo. This is the first thing I got yelled at when I started at the college paper... |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 10:25 PM on 07.05.10 |
->> "I asked for Ms. Randolph to be removed because I wanted readers to focus on Mr. Obama, not because I wanted to make him look isolated. That wasn’t the point of the story."
How about dropping some type over her on the cover? How about a solid burn and dodge? How about you just run the damn photo the way it is?
It is flat wrong for an editorial publication to make an alteration like this. |
|
Bruce Twitchell, Photographer
|
Coeur d'Alene | ID | USA | Posted: 11:19 PM on 07.05.10 |
| ->> Not to mention the extended sky on the cover. |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:41 AM on 07.06.10 |
->> "How about dropping some type over her on the cover? How about a solid burn and dodge? How about you just run the damn photo the way it is?"
Or how about just having your photo editor look for another image. |
|
Jeff Hinds, Photographer
|
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 4:28 AM on 07.06.10 |
->> this one doesnt bother me..it doesnt mislead readers in any way.
what's more disturbing on that page, bottom right, is obama with a yankees cap on.
lol |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 7:40 AM on 07.06.10 |
->> I disagree Jeff.
Any altered image furthers the public's mistrust of the media. The alterations made to this image bother me because they change the feel of the photo. In the first one he looks like he's discussing the issue with otherpeopel and in the altered image he looks like he's contemplating or lamenting over the spill. The tone of the altered image goes much better with the headline "The damage beyond the spill".
just my .02 |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 8:36 AM on 07.06.10 |
| ->> The trouble is at that level of management (Emma Duncan, deputy editor of The Economist) problems like this will never go away unless the perpetrators are punished the same way a photographer would be for manipulation. fired. but it won't happen. for some reason these people are insulated by stupidity. they can make the most outlandish statements and excuses which is their heads makes it right. case in point just a few weeks ago an editor removed candidates from a photo and didn't see anything wrong with it. I sent a letter to the publisher and he responded that I didn't know the editor and she did a fine job. would she manipulate a photo again? not according to him but he was so over the top defending one of his managers it was crazy. there is surely a double standard in these things when a manager is involved. and as kevin said every single time some ill advised moron does this it damages all of our credibility. you can bury your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't but it does. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 1:09 PM on 07.06.10 |
->> Unfortunately we're only seeing the ones that get caught...
It's reasonable to assume thousands of retouched images a week are being added to our historical recollection. Most alterations probably pass unnoticed...with little or no way to "catch" the alteration later on. A difficult problem.
It is unfortunate camera manufacturers have been unable to standardize on an open source image fingerprint process and instead continue to push expensive, proprietary solutions...guaranteeing they will never be adopted in any widespread fashion. |
|
Karsten Moran, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
New York | NY | United States of America | Posted: 1:31 PM on 07.06.10 |
->> The biggest issue with this *IS* that it misleads the viewer/reader.
The edited image makes it looks like Obama is in deep contemplation, not leaning in to listen to someone who is standing to his immediate right.
It completely changes the meaning of the photo... it changes it to fit the intent of the editors, and it becomes an illustration. But unlike a New Yorker cartoon cover, someone who picks this up on a newsstand will have no idea. They will be mislead.
Is it a big deal insofar as the reader's experience and understanding of the piece is concerned? I doubt it. But it changes the meaning of a gesture by an un-posed subject (Obama).
We saw a similar, albeit far tackier and more harmful, thing happen here:
http://gawker.com/5566937/lance-armstrong-doesnt-appreciate-outsides-photos... |
|
Dianna Russell, Photographer
|
Springfield | MO | USA | Posted: 2:26 PM on 07.06.10 |
->> The comments to the article show people are beginning to accept this practice.
"I don't understand what is wrong about removing the other people from the pic."
"Seriously. What's the big deal?"
"Meh, the image manipulation doesn't change the *meaning* of the image to me."
Sad. |
|
Fred Beckham, Photographer
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
|
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 3:07 PM on 07.06.10 |
->> ->> The comments to the article show people are beginning to accept this practice.
"I don't understand what is wrong about removing the other people from the pic."
"Seriously. What's the big deal?"
"Meh, the image manipulation doesn't change the *meaning* of the image to me."
Sad.""
and from photographers no less... |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 3:09 PM on 07.06.10 |
->> "The comments to the article show people are beginning to accept this practice. "
Yes, it seems as though with every flip of a calendar page that John Q. Public becomes more tolerant with what is right and what is wrong .... that distinction has become quite a moving target in recent years .... |
|
Paul Hayes, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Littleton | NH | USA | Posted: 3:16 PM on 07.06.10 |
->> The Economist almost always uses altered photos/illustrations/staged photos on their cover. Had I not known the story behind the photo, I would have assumed Obama had actually been photoshopped *into* it (as opposed to other people being photoshopped out of it).
The Economist should have just noted inside that the cover was a photo-illustration/photoshopped photo, and been done with it. They obviously were not interested in simply printing a photo as is. Why should they suddenly pretend that was their intention?
My advice: Make clear your intentions and photo altering to the reader. If you heavily photoshop a cover photo for effect, be up front about it. |
|
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 6:49 PM on 07.06.10 |
| ->> I've received several emails from people stating that not only is the the women photoshopped but that there is not a platform that close to shore anywhere. Anyone else with first hand knowledge on that one? |
|
Matt Stamey, Photographer
|
Houma | LA | USA | Posted: 11:29 PM on 07.06.10 |
| ->> Yeah, I work down near where that image was taken... Not uncommon at all to see rigs that close to shore. I usually hit up that same beach once or twice a summer for features and always seem to make "kid in water with rig in background" image. |
|
Derick Hingle, Photographer
|
Hammond | LA | USA | Posted: 6:32 PM on 07.07.10 |
->> I have been covering the oil spill that photo was taken at Port Fourchon Beach an area closed to the public and the media except for a daily window of access where a tour is guided into the area. The oil production platform is visible from the beach, that platform is possibly the closest one to land in the region.
I saw the photo in the bookstore and thought it was just a great shot, I could not cover things that day because access was available only for the White House pool photographers and I could not shoot the event. I was really hoping to shoot that day and seeing the cover I was thinking I might have gotten a similar image given the opportunity, but it appears no one got that shot because the shot was manipulated and not what really happened. I agree that a magazine can take liberties with a photo like that, but it must be noted as an illustration or note of some type. I have a similar shot only workers cleaning up with the platform in the background. |
|
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 12:52 AM on 07.09.10 |
| ->> HAAAA!!! Thanks Amy, that was FUNNY!! |
|
Jesse Beals, Photographer
 |
Tracyton | WA | USA | Posted: 10:56 PM on 07.11.10 |
->> This happens more and more these days. The older generation of reporters / editors get let go for young un-experienced staff.
No more about ethics, but about making the overall product stand out above the rest. |
|
Dianna Russell, Photographer
|
Springfield | MO | USA | Posted: 12:25 AM on 07.12.10 |
->> So, can anything be done to turn this around or do those in charge just not give a rip anymore? Oh well. Let it go because the majority of readers either don't know or don't care.
This is sad. |
|
Matt Brown, Photographer
|
Fullerton | CA | USA | Posted: 12:34 AM on 07.12.10 |
| ->> Fire the editor! |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 2:04 AM on 07.12.10 |
->> Dianna .... so true .... we now live in a world where bloggers sitting in their Mom and Dad's basement wearing nothing but their skivvies are considered tried-and-true "journalists" by the general public ......
Until the general public stands up and demands the Fourth Estate to play by the rules, I fear this downward trend will continue .... |
|
Gregory Greene, Photographer
|
Durham | NH | USA | Posted: 8:46 AM on 07.12.10 |
->> The really sad part of this was the lame justification to do it by The Economist. There was no need to justify it to anyone if they simply were upfront about the image in the first place. Paul Hayes said it earlier in the thread and he was right on the money.
Great cover nonetheless. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 6:29 PM on 07.12.10 |
->> The covers on The Economist (the best news mag in the world) have never been straight reportage but are usually some sort of illustration, often containing photographic elements.
The best one so far has been (in a cover story that some how concerned Mexico) was a large cactus whose "fingers" had been arranged to give "the finger". |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 2:35 PM on 07.14.10 |
| ->> This week's Economist cover is another Photoshopped image featuring the Eiffel Tower with "brewer's droop". |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|