| 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
Yet another example of *alleged* Photoshop nonsense.
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
 |
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:55 PM on 07.19.10 |
->> What could it possibly be? Seriously.
--Mark |
|
Craig Mitchelldyer, Photographer, Assistant
|
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 2:02 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> why. why oh why do people do this? is making a not-that-good-picture into a not-that-much-better picture worth losing a client. I am sure he will never shoot for Getty again or (giving the photographer the benefit of the doubt) whoever did that to the photo will never work for them again either. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 2:02 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> Mark, my money is on the "Oops, that's not the file I meant to move to the wire" excuse. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 2:13 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> brian, was getting ready to post this. unreal. there is NO defense to this kind of monkey business. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 2:18 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> Craig, you're right, I'll leave open the possibility that someone did this to the image after he moved it but my experience is that Getty tends to only hire professionals so the odds are quite slim that this was done by anybody other than the shooter who transmitted it. I'll certainly give credit to Getty for the immediate, mandatory kill order too. |
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
|
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 2:19 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> I've just placed Marc Feldman in our "do not use" file. Thanks for pointing this out as we use freelance photographers up in the Reno area from time to time. |
|
Matthew Ginn, Photographer
|
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 3:07 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> Who even has time to do something like that, on deadline? |
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
|
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 3:09 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> I guess it was pointless to blacklist him at our little paper. He isn't a local freelancer for Getty. He actually travels the country shooting golf for Getty which makes it even more astonishing. |
|
Mike Huffstatler, Photographer, Assistant
|
Rancho Cucamonga | Ca | United States | Posted: 3:25 PM on 07.19.10 |
->> wow. ---shaking head--- just wow. What in the world was this guy thinking? As a regular shooter for Getty what in the world could ever get in your head to think this was okay?
I had an old boss that over-used the acronym CLM. This clearly fits however as a career limiting move. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 3:52 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> I'm not sure that we should be slamming Marc just yet. None of us have any idea who altered the image. |
|
Thomas B. Shea, Photographer
|
Pearland/Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 4:04 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> Good point Mark. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 4:07 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> I agree Marc. you can read almost anything into guy's blog post. the editor's reaction could be taken either way...either he was aghast that the photographer altered the image OR he was aghast that a desk person thought it would be prettier. but I do believe somebody somewhere has some explaining to do. these are the sort of things that just can't be swept under the rug because it actually affects EVERYONE in the business. |
|
Mike Huffstatler, Photographer, Assistant
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 5:14 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> I find it hard to believe that a photographer or editor would, 1. Be stupid enough to alter an image in the first place and 2. be so incredibly stupid as to include the unaltered image in the take. And yet it happened. |
|
Craig Mitchelldyer, Photographer, Assistant
|
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 5:24 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> Again giving benefit of the doubt, but is it possible that Marc hired an assistant to run cards and transmit that did this? Not an excuse, but a possibility? I'm just running ideas through my head as to how in the heck this can even happen? Like Mark Terrill said "None of us have any idea who altered the image." |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 5:53 PM on 07.19.10 |
->> Someone just anonymously emailed this link to Getty where the two images are almost right next to each other. It was definitely an alteration. Whoever did it failed to remove the shirt of the other golfer right under the armpit area.
www.gettyimageslatam.com/index.php?module=result&event_id=95022071&event_cat=Sports&event_date=1970-01-01 |
|
Alexander Pylyshyn, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Newmarket | ON | Canada | Posted: 6:01 PM on 07.19.10 |
->> As Mark said, I find it amazing to think that a tenured shooter with Getty would A) Have the gall to try something like this or B) Be stupid enough to transmit the unaltered version of the image.
I wouldn't mind hearing Marc out but Getty cutting ties with him certainly doesn't help his case. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 6:07 PM on 07.19.10 |
->> I've never worked for Getty. Do they really pay enough to merit an assistant for this sort of gig? Perhaps if one is ... foolish ... enough to hire someone with such low ethical standards one deserves to lose a major client?
The "I didn't intend to transmit that file" excuse would seem appropriate. |
|
Craig Mitchelldyer, Photographer, Assistant
|
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 6:44 PM on 07.19.10 |
->> Alex
"Be stupid enough to transmit the unaltered version of the image."
I really hope you meant "Be stupid enough to transmit the altered image"
I would say, why even bother altering in the first place?? |
|
Alan Herzberg, Photographer
|
Elm Grove | WI | USA | Posted: 7:15 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> The comments that appear below the article refer to altering photos as as a "slippery slope." It's not a slippery slope. It's a cliff. |
|
Alexander Pylyshyn, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Newmarket | ON | Canada | Posted: 7:34 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> Craig, sorry yes I meant altered. Thanks for catching that for me. Unfortunate for the transmitter that they couldn't say the same about catching the mistake of transmitting two images that blatantly pointed out the edit. |
|
Dominick Reuter, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boston | MA | USA | Posted: 8:45 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> Nah, you guys don't realize, but that caddy is really fast - like 10fps fast. He even makes the bokeh warp. They're *so* two different files... |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Matthew Hinton, Photographer, Assistant
 |
New Orleans | LA | USA | Posted: 9:21 PM on 07.19.10 |
->> I wish sportsshooter would alert you to an update to the conversation. Sorry Delane,
Anyway it will be interesting to see if the golfer and caddie back up his story. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 9:30 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> It's a good thing it wasn't Tiger's caddy. If he'd throw a camera in the water for taking a photo, who knows what he'd do to a photographer that cloned him out. |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 9:51 PM on 07.19.10 |
| ->> Fatal mistakes are fatal mistakes ... I had a friend who was fired from a daily because he cloned out a Coke soda can setting on the table at a City Council meeting ... he thought it was distracting and promoting a product that maybe the paper didn't want to do in editorial content ... problem is he never asked anyone if this was acceptable before doing it ... when his publisher noticed in a competing paper that had the coke can in the image ... he fired my friend after confirming he cloned it out ... it was innocent intentions, he didn't try to replace the can with a Pepsi .... or tried to deceive anyone that the council member didn't drink Coke ... but he learned the hard way that this type of stuff isn't done ... for any reason .... I hope Feldman learned from his mistake and can go on from here. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 10:49 PM on 07.19.10 |
->> Butch, I have to disagree. With all due respect to you, I think your friend should have been fired for cloning out a Coke can. I don't buy the argument that it was "innocent" or that "he never asked anyone if this was acceptable". I remember the switch to digital and I remember discussions of what was and was not acceptable being discussed ad nauseum during that period of time. Unless someone was living in a cave during that period they should have known that removing content from a news photo is NEVER acceptable.
I don't understand why every time this happens we call it a "mistake" it's not a mistake. I put gas mixed with oil for my weed trimmer into my oil-injected lawnmower yesterday... that's a mistake. Altering a news photo is NOT a "mistake", it's an intentional act, and I'm frankly tired of reading about it. I called it on the 4th post in this thread, that the excuse would be the ol' "Oops, that's not the file I meant to move to the wire" excuse.
Now I don't say that to disparage Mr. Feldman as a person; I'm sure he's a nice guy. But I have to be honest with you I work hard to make sure that my images are honest and that my files are accurate and yet the public, due to incidents like this, will always harbor a doubt. We know, and the public knows, that the technology exists to alter the truth so we, as photojournalists, have only our reputations to validate the images we capture and share with the public. Every single time something like this happens, it hurts MY credibility, and those of my friends and colleagues so I have ZERO patience for his type of thing.
I for one can respect Mr. Feldman while doubting the validity of his story. I can see showing a subject how the clone tool works during some down time and that may very well have happened, but I just don't buy the argument that the image was fully captioned (yes I know if the IPTC fields were filled out ahead of time they'd stay with the altered version too) and re-slugged to a sequential file number and accidentally moved to the send folder and then accidentally transmitted. It's just too much to ask me to accept.
Getty did the right thing here. On a personal level my thoughts are with Mr. Feldman and his family as these are difficult times for anyone, particularly someone in the journalism field, to find work, but on a professional level I'm glad to see a zero tolerance stance on this type of thing.
Butch, like you, I too hope that Mr. Feldman "can go on from here" but something tells me that the right decision was made in this incident. |
|
Mike O'Bryon, Photographer
|
Ft. Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 11:00 PM on 07.19.10 |
->> I guess I've know Marc for many of his 20+ years on the golf side of his business... and while he can be a little crazy... he's not stupid... he'd never, to my way of thinking, do anything like this... intentionally.
I believe him that it was a mistake.... and one he appears to have paid dearly for.
I don't know what the Getty newsroom temperature is like ... it may be one strike and you're out.... more as an example .... if so, it's a shame.....but it would be a bigger shame if everyone didn't learn from Marc's mistake.
Marc is a good photographer.... he'll land on his feet and he seems to have acknowledged his mistake ( innocent or not ) has cost him big time.
--Mike |
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
|
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 12:02 AM on 07.20.10 |
->> Having worked for Getty in the past, understanding their GIFT editing/transmitting software and given his explanation, I can see how it happened. Given his comments, and the crappy job of cloning, his explanation is completely plausible. It was also very sloppy and a mistake that cost him a good client.
In college I was once warned about making a joke caption on a photo because, "Mistakes happen and eventually it will end up in print." It has happened in the past and it appears to have happened again this weekend. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:02 AM on 07.20.10 |
| ->> Mike, with all due respect, I'm not going to belabor a point but there are no second chances for errors such as this. plain and simple. in the past I know of only one photojournalist who was given a second chance after altering photos....two years later he was caught again and terminated. if you want to fool around with the visual content of a photograph you need not be in the news business. mistake? error? fooling around? or on purpose? the result is going to be the same. brian said it the best it can be said. it puts a nasty stain on ALL of us whenever someone does this nonsense. I know, I'll be branded a hard ass for saying this but I too am tired of people thinking we all manipulate photos because someone made a "mistake" which then becomes a news item in itself. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 7:46 AM on 07.20.10 |
->> "'Only a moron would have sent both,' he said."
Yep. |
|
Michael P. King, Photographer
|
Appleton/Green Bay | WI | USA | Posted: 8:29 AM on 07.20.10 |
| ->> I'm not sure I approve of the photographer showing his work to the subjects and allowing them to influence his edit. I find that just as ethically compromising as the Photoshopping. |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 10:45 AM on 07.20.10 |
->> Brian .... I am in no way defending anyone who changes the content of ANY photo for ANY reason when the image is to be used as part of reportage ... I was just sharing a personal story ... I am glad my friend was terminated for what he did ... he deserved it ... in fact, if he had been working for me, I would have let him go as well ...
I was merely pointing out that altering image content for news coverage is wrong in any form and a fatal mistake ... even when there are no intentional unscrupulous motives in play .... it just can't be tolerated in any form, period. |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
East Kilbride | Lanarkshire | United Kingdom | Posted: 11:39 AM on 07.20.10 |
->> @Sam Morris,
I used GIFT as recently as Sunday and the workflow is
- Acquire (direct from card OR a desktop folder)
- Browse
- Select
- Edit (which pulls the image into Photoshop)
- Finish Caption
- Transmit
For Marc to wire in that image erroneously, he'd have had to
1. Select the image in GIFT's browser
2. Edit it for a second time in Photoshop using GIFT's actions
3. Add a caption to it once it's been edited
That's three separate stages at which he'd have to view, select and further edit his altered image.
I'm still very much a 'young punk' (thanks to Jim Merithew for giving me that label) when it comes to editorial photography but, even so, I find it a stretch to think that you'd have to go through steps two and three as above without realising "Oh heck, that shot ain't meant for the wire... best cull it now" |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:02 PM on 07.20.10 |
| ->> This slightly veering from the topic...but I would like to chip in on what Michael said. In this digital age I have found it a very bad precedent to show folks either the LCD on the back of the camera or have them look over your shoulder at an event while editing. It only took a couple of times of people actually getting irate about how they looked before I took the hint and made it my "official" policy to deny anyone from looking at my take. I always say, "sorry but we're not allowed to do that"....of course you have to pick and choose when to do that, sometimes with little kids nowadays it helps to get a better relationship with them. but yeah, that's a bad idea to share you're edit. |
|
Andrew Spear, Photographer, Assistant
|
Athens | OH | United States | Posted: 12:25 PM on 07.20.10 |
->> Personally, instead of joking with subjects about removing things, people, pounds, wrinkles, etc. I usually laugh to entertain them for a minute. Then I get serious and explain to them I'm not allowed to do that and take some time to explain the ethics of journalism and photojournalism to them.
I always figured if I can truly educate somebody about our standards, they're more likely to be on "our side." A lot of people don't understand what we're allowed and not allowed to do. |
|
John Bowersmith, Photographer
|
Lubbock | Tx | USA | Posted: 12:45 PM on 07.20.10 |
->> Did Allan Detrich make similar claims?
I agree with Chuck, for the most part. There have been times when finding one person who knows everyone in a large group and having them chimp and identify people has helped me a lot. When at sporting events, mostly track, and athletes ask to see images I tell them that it could give them an unfair advantage because they could see something and make changes to technique, usually people understand that. Otherwise I won't show people anything until it's final.
I have had people look over my shoulder while editing and comment on my photos. I either pretend they aren't there or curtly tell them that I'm busy working and don't have time to chat.
This does suck and if it's an innocent mistake it's totally lame. We should all learn from this and use it as a lesson to be more careful when we are having fun with our photos. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 2:27 PM on 07.20.10 |
->> Allan Detrich's initial excuse was exactly that; "I was just playing around and didn't mean to transmit that file". which all went to naught after the paper found dozens of examples over years. Doesn't mean Feldman's excuse isn't truthful ... but still pretty weak overall.
I think it's safe to say anyone paying attention might think about learning from this. Don't play around in photoshop. |
|
Michael P. King, Photographer
|
Appleton/Green Bay | WI | USA | Posted: 8:54 AM on 07.21.10 |
->> Chuck,
I don't think it's veering from the topic at all... the photographer's interaction with the subjects of the photo directly influenced his choice to manipulate.
But it does go to the larger issue that we as photographers and photo editors need to be the editors. We can't let outside interests have a handle on what gets seen or not seen. It doesn't matter if it's a golfer and his caddy or a police officer or BP employee. It's one in the same through my eyes. |
|
Wally Skalij, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 10:44 AM on 07.21.10 |
->> I wonder how many of you have had professional athletes come up to you to see their photos a after the event? I'm also wondering why the caddy doesn't want to be in the photo? Why would you save an altered image to your desktop?
This whole thing smells and wouldn't buy this cheap excuse for a second. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 3:59 PM on 07.21.10 |
| ->> I have to agree with my friend Wally. I've never seen a caddy walk into a press room with a golfer and never had a golfer want to see pictures. That doesn't mean it can't happen. I've just never seen it. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 7:23 PM on 07.21.10 |
| ->> Most pro golfers I've met would rather take a blow to the head with a big bertha driver than even acknowledge our existence much less show up in the photo area..... |
|
Brad Mangin, Photographer
 |
Pleasanton | CA | USA | Posted: 8:05 PM on 07.21.10 |
->> Back in the very old days of sending pictures with a Leafax Jose Canseco and Dave Henderson of the Oakland A's often times came into the OLD AP darkroom at the Oakland Coliseum to look at tiny pictures of themselves on the screen. Back in 1990 the darkroom was near the press elevator and down the hall from the clubhouse.
Canseco was always in his Zubaz and Esther was often with him. |
|
Mike O'Bryon, Photographer
|
Ft. Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 1:50 PM on 07.22.10 |
->> The golfer in the image( Matt Bettencourt ) had just won the tournament... so being invited to the media center is standard.... and for his caddy and/or family to be there too is also not uncommon....they often will stand in the back of the interview room while the post tournament interview is conducted... and depending on the tournament... the " media center " can be anything from a hotel ballroom... to a converted cart barn...
Not defending or condemning anyone... just commenting on the notion that players/caddies don't come into the media center...
-- Mike |
|
Nick Doan, Photographer, Assistant
|
Scottsdale | AZ | USA | Posted: 2:44 PM on 07.22.10 |
->> I consider Mr. Feldman a friend, and I am more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I do know that he works very closely with PGA Tour golfers on both commercial and editorial shoots, and is personal friends with more than one of them. He is the only photographer that I know where a golfer will stop to say hello or talk to him during a round. And, I have seen golfers come up to him and look at photos with him in the media center. So, I find everything that he said believable.
It doesn't mean that he didn't make a mistake. He obviously did, and he is certainly paying for it. I've sent the wrong photos before, and I've even messed up using GIFT before and sent the wrong photos. I've always caught the mistake though, and called the Desk and had them fix things. But, for someone who does this on almost a daily basis, it can get routine. And, when you get complacent in something, that's when disaster usually strikes.
I do wish him the best of luck though. Losing the Getty gig has to be painful especially in this economy.
And, it's certainly a cautionary tale for the rest of us. |
|
Alexander Pylyshyn, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Newmarket | ON | Canada | Posted: 3:50 PM on 07.22.10 |
->> Interesting, Nick. Thanks for the insight. I still find it fishy how the image was somehow saved to desktop, captioned, and transmitted, without a professional like Marc noticing it, but I can certainly see how it might be a possibility that he had no intention of ever sending the altered image.
As you said though, a mistake is a mistake. |
|
Andrew Scott, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McLean | VA | United States | Posted: 5:19 PM on 07.22.10 |
->> A secondary kill was released from Getty last evening for ALL images from the event, FYI.
ORG XMIT: 51434604 Attention editors: After further review of the images from the 2010 Reno-Tahoe Open alterations were found that do not meet our strict editorial integrity standards. We ask you to please do not use the images and kill all images related to this event from your systems. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. The Getty Images Picture Desk GTY ID: TREUX GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 5:38 PM on 07.22.10 |
->> it is a conflict of interest to cover editorially something or someone with whom/which you have a commercial relationship. Mr. Feldman should not be covering the PGA in an editorial capacity if he's also working for the PGA as a commercial client.
Mr. Feldman may be a real nice guy and a heck of a photographer, but he clearly does not understand the ethics requirements of a photojournalist. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 5:40 PM on 07.22.10 |
| ->> I think in this day and age of instant judgment via the internet we can all learn something from this. we have all grown so jaded (at least I have) over the years watching people self destruct trying to become better and better using the technology available. and often we forget there can be honest mistakes. we are after all, human. it's very easy to dog pile on someone we don't personally know. I think most of us (I include myself here) can't understand how these things happen. yes, many of the high profile scandals have ended up being serial offenders....maybe this truly was a stupid mistake. there are many professions where you can make mistakes. you can make certain mistakes in our business (who has never gotten an ID wrong?), but photo manipulation isn't one where you can find any forgiveness. are we too harsh? unfortunately I don't think so. I truly feel sorry for Mr. Feldman. but this is yet another example for those young up and coming photographers (and those of us long in the tooth). shoot the photos YOU SEE not the ones YOU WISH you had seen. I cannot even count the number of times I've had frames where if that damn ball, arm, hand, leg, head, net, bat, net, clock, car, horse, was in a slightly different place I would have had a GREAT photo. but it wasn't, it didn't happen. live with it. that is what we do. we CAPTURE moments. we don't MAKE them. I'll shuddup now. |
|
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
|