| 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
Sports Illustrated photoshop disaster?
Rodrigo Gaya, Photographer
 |
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 11:45 AM on 08.13.10 |
->> I was just looking at the Alabama cover of the August 16 edition, and I noticed what may be a terrible photoshop disaster.
Click here to see the cover:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/cover/featured/11440/index.htm
Take a look at number 4's hands...
Both the left and the right hands seem to have an extra pair right next to them...
Also, number 3's back, left leg looks off.
What do you think? |
|
Mike Huffstatler, Photographer, Assistant
|
Rancho Cucamonga | Ca | United States | Posted: 12:29 PM on 08.13.10 |
| ->> It is really hard to tell what is there on the web image. The copy I got in the mail has Boise State on the cover so I can't see anything. |
|
Jason Myers, Photographer
|
West Palm Beach | FL | | Posted: 12:45 PM on 08.13.10 |
->> I see the "discrepancy" but wouldn't initially say it's a photoshop issue. As a former college football player, it's not uncommon for a player to have an extra pair of gloves on them as the gloves get wet like a golf glove.
just my .02
but then again maybe it's a composite needing a bit more work |
|
Frankie Creel, Photographer
|
Boiling Springs | SC | USA | Posted: 1:47 PM on 08.13.10 |
->> Holding the issue in my hand....it clearly looks like they tried moving #4 forward by by doing so forgot to photoshop out his hands.....you can still see his right arm in the picture.
not sure what is going on with #3's left leg....interesting. I didn't even notice it before. |
|
Paul Hayes, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Littleton | NH | USA | Posted: 1:48 PM on 08.13.10 |
| ->> After comparing the cover to video of the shoot, it's definitely a bad photoshop. Surprisingly bad, really. Looks like they enlarged the middle player to make him bigger (or bring him forward to improve composition/impact). Either way the video shows no extra pair of gloves. In fact if you look at the cover, the ghost hands are almost definitely smaller versions of the players hand. You'd think SI could afford to hire someone who could at least use a cloning tool to eliminate that sort of error. Was this the cover that appeared on hard copies? |
|
Frankie Creel, Photographer
|
Boiling Springs | SC | USA | Posted: 1:51 PM on 08.13.10 |
| ->> Paul, yes...it is the copy i got in the mail yesterday. |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Northwest Missouri | MO | USA | Posted: 2:24 PM on 08.13.10 |
| ->> Note that the image is highly processed as well. Looks like the Lucis Art filter was applied. Even the turf below appears to have been done in post. |
|
David Manning, Photographer
|
Athens | GA | | Posted: 2:43 PM on 08.13.10 |
| ->> .... I think that I need to shoot more and not worry about SI until they call me and want to buy a photo. |
|
Dave Breen, Photographer
|
Somerset | PA | USA | Posted: 3:00 PM on 08.13.10 |
| ->> What interests me is that PRM appears to be using a ThinkPad. I thought I was the only PC around. |
|
Primoz Jeroncic, Photographer
|
Kranj | SI | Slovenia | Posted: 3:33 PM on 08.13.10 |
| ->> Maybe nothing was photoshoped... it's SI anyway, and they don't do this kinda of stuff right? ;) Maybe #3 just have 2 sets of hands, even though both "ghost" hands (yes even left one is there) don't really look like they would be attached to his body. |
|
Primoz Jeroncic, Photographer
|
Kranj | SI | Slovenia | Posted: 3:33 PM on 08.13.10 |
| ->> Errr sorry I meant #4 not #3. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 6:06 PM on 08.13.10 |
->> Dave, I use a ThinkPad also. The things just WORK! :)
As for the photo, I rather doubt that Sports Illustrated is trying to convince us that an Alabama strong safety has four hands so is it possible that this is a strobe sync issue that occurred while the middle subject's hands were in motion?
If his hands were moving quickly, while the rest of him was relatively stationary, and one strobe popped just before the other, it would possible to have a "double exposure" effect on the body part in motion.
If it was a deliberate PhotoShop job that was poorly executed, it seems that this would be a rather unlikely choice for the cover of Sports Illustrated. I would imagine that if they wanted to fix this before it was printed and shipped all over the world then they probably would have.
Furthermore, we are unable to offer this up as a case of "this is what you get for $50 per photo regardless of placement or size" argument because these were done by SI Staffers :) |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 7:20 PM on 08.13.10 |
| ->> Come on folks. It's a magazine cover. unless you have been living under a rock it is common practice for covers to be heavily digitized, manipulated, photoshopped, misrepresented, falsified, etc, etc, etc.....plus don't forget it is a STAGED photo. so, what was the problem here? I'm totally confused. I mean really, they did a bad photoshop job? YIKES! |
|
Doug Holleman, Photographer
|
Mark Sobhani, Photographer
|
San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 7:45 PM on 08.13.10 |
->> Chuck, for me the issue isn't about the fact they photoshopped a cover. They always do that.
What worries me is not only is it a shoddy job of photoshopping, but how many sets of eyes usually look at the cover of a major magazine before it prints? The fact that the cover printed like this, to me, is a bit disturbing. Do they really consider this acceptable? |
|
Ron Hawkes, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Rockland | ME | USA | Posted: 7:49 PM on 08.13.10 |
| ->> I have the Ohio State Cover and while there are not any extra hands, No. 36 might wish his left hand were somewhere else. LOL |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 8:40 PM on 08.13.10 |
| ->> sorry mark, as far as I'm concerned it's a tempest in a teapot. if SI wants to publish crap, that's their business. with all the cutbacks in the media more mistakes are happening. hell, our paper laid off half the copy editors, think we have any errors day to day? fact of life my friend. most people could give a flying rats ass about mistakes. management realizes that and just "carry on". if it's not noticed it's forgotten in the next issue. |
|
Rodrigo Gaya, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 8:43 PM on 08.13.10 |
->> So I guess I wanted to show this cover because not only am I concerned by what Mark S said, but also about the photo credit. It read "Photographs by PRM" (as in he shot the various covers).
Its not just a straight shot. Is it manipulated to the point where it should be considered a photo illustration?
Giving it a straight credit seems misleading.
What, if any different, should the caption say instead? |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 8:44 PM on 08.13.10 |
->> Chuck,
Speaking of copy editors, the rat is possessive and takes an apostrophe; rat's
xxxooooxxx |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 8:54 PM on 08.13.10 |
->> a flying rats ass
Even with the addition of an apostrophe, the meaning is unclear. Is it the species "flying rat" that we are giving/about, or is it just the airborne rear of a standard rat? |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Northwest Missouri | MO | USA | Posted: 9:09 PM on 08.13.10 |
| ->> It is an illustration by the nature of the assignment. I don't think readers know what the 4377 a photo illustration is anyway. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 9:15 PM on 08.13.10 |
| ->> I left that thingy majingy off on porpoise. |
|
Frank Niemeir, Photographer
 |
Woodstock | GA | usa | Posted: 9:16 PM on 08.13.10 |
->> Maybe they need some of these stickers: http://www.tomscott.com/warnings
Chuck, as Lewis Grizzard used to say "What do you expect for .25 cents?" |
|
David G. McIntyre, Photographer
|
Doug Holleman, Photographer
|
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 10:51 PM on 08.13.10 |
| ->> It's obviously a photoshop illustration. Blue field turf would be ridiculous. |
|
David G. McIntyre, Photographer
|
Bruce Twitchell, Photographer
|
Coeur d'Alene | ID | USA | Posted: 1:48 AM on 08.14.10 |
->> For the Boise State cover, it was not shot on the blue turf-
http://tinyurl.com/29ncjg9 |
|
John Korduner, Photographer
 |
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 2:36 AM on 08.14.10 |
| ->> I'm just thankful that I spring for the cotton panties. Fortunately they don't bunch up so much when you're skimming through magazines. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 7:25 AM on 08.14.10 |
| ->> 4 handed defense-men..... thinking that this may effect my wagers this season....... |
|
Jack Howard, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Central Jersey | NJ | USA | Posted: 9:16 AM on 08.14.10 |
->> In the quixotic interest of helping to fix the woebegotten state of the English language on the interweb, it should be pointed out that the original poster isn't really "implying" anything.
The thread is titled: "Sports Illustrated photoshop (sic) disaster?" The first sentence in the post explains where the original poster saw what he believes "may be a terrible photoshop (sic) disaster."
And he then describes the pixel zones in the image which he feels back up his original stated claim that this is potentially a "photoshop (sic) disaster."
Sure, the use of a question mark in the title and the inclusion of "may be" in the first sentence softens the accusatory tone of the commentary a touch, but still, despite this couching, it doesn't really rise to the level of "implying" or "saying or stating indirectly" any more than most of the examples in Alanis Morrisette's song "Isn't it Ironic" properly illustrate irony.
In other words, it's a pretty straightforward and direct statement and commentary on what the original poster thinks happened.
An example of "implying" in this instance might be: "Wow, I don't know where Alabama is finding their defenseman these days, but unless this four-handed #4 is the child of Kalika, something fishy may have happened with the pixels in post..." |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 9:42 AM on 08.14.10 |
->> http://tinyurl.com/29ncjg9
Okay, he's editing with a Thinkpad and shooting with Canon. Surely that's enough to derail this thread to get us to 50 posts... :-) |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Indiana | IN | USA | Posted: 10:06 AM on 08.14.10 |
->> I can't go along with the argument that the practice of manipulating photos on magazine covers is so common that everyone thinks it's okay, the norm, if you will. Nobody seems to have any ethics these days.
We bashed the hell out of one guy who removed some feet under a fence in a sports shot and that was okay to bash him. At least it was a good Photoshop job. This SI cover is a piss-poor job of Photoshop work and even a worse job at editing.
This is why the public doesn't trust us as much as they used to, because they can't take what we give them at face value anymore. I get asked all the time by people if we Photoshop people in, out or remove unsightly items from photos.
I was shooting these team photos for our fall sports tab earlier this week and another photographer who was there wanted to move the teams to the football field and shoot there. And right there in the background was the goal posts and stadium lights. People had them growing out of their heads. When I mentioned it to him, he didn't care. So I had to end up shooting there. I tried to move in such a way that it wouldn't be so obvious, but it was nearly impossible.
So the shots will be published with the crappy backgrounds. I will not Photoshop out the goal post and lights. I hope it will serve as a lesson to the other photographer who was there. It probably won't, but I am hopeful the athletic director will see it and the next time, I may be able to get some help from him moving the teams away from the goal posts and lights. |
|
Gerry Melendez, Photographer
|
Columbia | SC | USA | Posted: 11:18 AM on 08.14.10 |
->> Jeff,
I think the point Chuck and other previous posters made is that portraits are set up. It's a staged event. In essence you are manipulating the shoot from the get go. You tell them where to look, how to pose, spray them with water, give them a helmet to hold, ball, set up lights, use grids, use light painting techniques, etc., etc. They are illustrations from the beginning and you as the photographer have manipulated the event from the beginning. Using photoshop has become another tool to create looks, through actions, etc.
Here's an example of a recent clip winner
http://www.sportsshooter.com/contest/clip/winning_image.html?id=1178
Do you think those lights were part of the stadium?
The sports shot you mention, if I remember correctly, was an actual event.
There is a difference.
The problem is that we don't do a good job in education folks out there about the different types of photography. Many just assume we re-create everything. In my opinion, it's not because of manipulated portraits. The erosion of trust comes when we try to change or manipulate real events to add impact or editorialize. Example would be the Times shooter who merged two photos while in Iraq.
Again, there is a difference.
I also get asked the question about photoshop and usually end up educating people about the different types of photography. We think people know that just because we work at a newspaper, our photography is different. But most people don't think that way. Look at any magazine and the types of photography in it. Ads, illustrations, fashion, etc. Most people just lump us all together.
that is the problem. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:46 PM on 08.14.10 |
| ->> hey gerry, don't all track events have a couple of lightstands with pocket wizards on them. and thanks you made my point clearer than I did. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Indiana | IN | USA | Posted: 4:00 PM on 08.14.10 |
| ->> Gerry, thanks for your feedback. We can agree to disagree, if that's okay. |
|
David Minton, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Denton | TX | USA | Posted: 7:31 PM on 08.14.10 |
| ->> For anyone interested, Getty has the "originals" on their website. Just search Peter Read Miller. Then you all can compare those to what's on the SI covers. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 9:26 PM on 08.14.10 |
| ->> I just think it sucks. |
|
Svein Ove Ekornesvaag, Photographer
|
Svein Ove Ekornesvaag, Photographer
|
Aalesund | Møre og Romsdal | Norway | Posted: 1:37 PM on 08.15.10 |
| ->> sorry, wrong picture in the link above. |
|
Matthew Hinton, Photographer, Assistant
 |
New Orleans | LA | USA | Posted: 2:17 PM on 08.15.10 |
->> Hey David with the similar sounding last name as mine,
I went to the Getty site and the Alabama cover photos don't show up in a search of his Miller's name but the other three do. Has the Alabama one been removed since last you checked? |
|
Matthew Hinton, Photographer, Assistant
|
New Orleans | LA | USA | Posted: 2:51 PM on 08.15.10 |
->> Hey Gerry
I agree that portraits have a different set of ethics. But the do have ethics and when you start Photoshopping you can go too far such as the mugshot of O.J. that was intentionally darkened for Time magazine and putting Martha Stewart's head on a model's body for Newsweek. I mean the O.J. shot technically is a portrait.
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2005/03/newsweek.html
Also National Geo moved the position of the Pyramids for it's cover which appears to be what happened here for the Alabama players-the position of the player was moved or duplicated poorly.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_case_of_the_mov.../
Also many years ago a photographer showed me a picture he took of a private school where they removed a African-American kid from the center of the photo and photoshopped two white kids on either side closer together for the cover.
And years later the opposite happened where a African-American kid was inserted on the cover of the University of Wisconsin application to show that the school was "culturally diverse" http://www.snopes.com/college/admin/uwmadison.asp#photo
So even though the ethics are different for covers there are ethical problems that can be even worse and more controversial than removing legs from a baseball fence for a newspaper. |
|
David G. McIntyre, Photographer
|
Beijing | . | CHINA | Posted: 6:53 PM on 08.15.10 |
->> Matthew Hinton said:
"So even though the ethics are different for covers there are ethical problems that can be even worse and more controversial than removing legs from a baseball fence for a newspaper."
There is no rule that says that ethics are different for covers. If you show me where the written rule is, I will apologize. Illustrations are fine, as are news photos, etc.
The point about worse and controversial than removing legs from a baseball fence for a newspaper, is bad period. For ethics is ethics. Our job is to record the news, and not create or alter it. Those legs were there, like it or not.
When I read a newspaper (that is supposed to reporting news), I want to know what I read and look at is real. Cover or inside illustrations are fine, as long as they are credited to being an illustration and not pretending or altered to be a news photo recording something that has happened in history. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 7:15 PM on 08.15.10 |
| ->> You folks who are trying to compare the alterations for magazine covers and the alteration of a purported news photo at an EVENT are WAY off base and quite frankly are showing your total and complete ignorance of the ethics involved in photojournalism. As always I am never surprised by the complete and total idiocy of some posts on SS. All we can do is inform the general public of our ethics. Don't try and make excuses for some hack who tainted all of us by altering news photos then lying about it...."oh I really didn't mean to send that manipulated photo" A portrait in all senses of the word is POSED. So it's already manipulated. Plain and simple. |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 7:22 PM on 08.15.10 |
| ->> I use a PC. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 7:50 PM on 08.15.10 |
| ->> Personally, I just need to know what is real and what isn't. If it's not real, say so up front. If it's fake, say so up front so I can know not to look/read/listen. Thanks. :) |
|
Matthew Hinton, Photographer, Assistant
|
New Orleans | LA | USA | Posted: 7:52 PM on 08.15.10 |
->> Wow guys, you can take a single sentence out of context and you can make points with it all day.
I wasn't excusing Allan Dietrich at all. My point is that a breach of cover ethics can be equally controversial if not more so, which I think anybody reading the post would understand. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 9:09 PM on 08.15.10 |
| ->> matthew, sorry dude, I don't think anyone took what you said "out of context". I think you need to realize most of the instances you used in your post have NOTHING to do with photojournalism ethics....then you threw in the deitrich reference. you are wrong. no other way to say that. a friggin cover of a alumni mag, football program manipulated has nothing to do with a photographer changing the content of a daily assignment as deitrich did over 80 times in just the THREE months his paper checked. I'm not denying there can be a brouhaha over the instances you gave but they have nothing at all to do with the day to day work of a newspaper photographer. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 12:53 AM on 08.16.10 |
->> After looking at the behind the scenes photos, I'm really stunned to find out that all of that type on the cover is added later.
I thought they had these big floating SPORTS ILLUSTRATED letters that they toted around the country. I wanted a set for my living room... |
|
Ivan Pierre Aguirre, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
El Paso | TX | United States | Posted: 4:07 AM on 08.16.10 |
->> One thing I can completely agree with, Chuck Liddys first post. Finally.
"Come on folks. It's a magazine cover. unless you have been living under a rock it is common practice for covers to be heavily digitized, manipulated, photoshopped, misrepresented, falsified, etc, etc, etc.....plus don't forget it is a STAGED photo. so, what was the problem here?"
-ipa |
|
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
|
