SportsShooter.com - Time for a digital ethics policy

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:

Contests:

Newsletter:

Members:

About Us:

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

Time for a digital ethics policy

Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor

Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:16 PM on 10.01.10

->> In light of ethical questions raised this year over some winners in the monthly clip contest, I am asking SportsShooter to amend the contest rules to add a rule banning digital manipulation. This is a standard clause in many photojournalism competitions, and as SportsShooter is a site primarily geared toward photojournalists, I believe rules that govern working photojournalists should govern the clip contest.

I am not writing this to call out any single photographer or photograph. But I do believe that as image manipulation has only become easier, there needs to be a line drawn that contest entries cannot cross.

POYi has a rule stating: “Digital manipulation, manufactured photo illustrations, double exposures, added masks, borders, backgrounds or other artistic effects are not allowed.”

BOP requires that the photographs conform to the NPPA’s code of ethics, and the sixth clause reads: “Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.”

The sixth rule for the monthly clip contest says: “The staff of SportsShooter.com reserves the right to delete any image that we consider to be in poor taste, has technical problems, or violates any of the contest rules.” Does anybody else remember the month that every photo with a border was purged from the contest? So disqualifying images from the contest would not be unprecedented.

It would be unrealistic to change the contest rules while people are still accumulating points for this year, but I think that a clause about digital manipulation needs to be added for 2011.

There should be a restriction on how long an image can be called into question (maybe only 15 days after results are announced). It would need to be determined if an image was disqualified, would that place be vacated like Reggie Bush’s Heisman, or would every picture move up one place? Personally, I think vacating the award sends a stronger signal. Just as photographers cannot vote for their own images, photographers who would benefit points-wise from an image being disqualified shouldn’t be allowed to question an image’s legality.

The bar for disqualifying an image should be incredibly high. The only time an image should be called into question should be if it wins a prize. Otherwise, the administrators would spend too much time being ethics police. But they should be allowed to request a raw file from a photographer to determine if their final product violates ethics that would get (and has gotten) working photojournalists fired.

Chuck Liddy, Photographer

Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 11:25 PM on 10.01.10

->> I have never entered the contest but I concur. I have heard far too many times over the past years, "well, it was for the contest. it wasn't published, so who am I deceiving?" that is bullshit. if those of you out there entering the contest think WINNING a monthly award is more important than your ethics I truly feel sorry for you. once you go down the "dark" path, I feel you are lost. seriously, is winning a monthly contest here on sportsshooter worth selling your soul?
for that matter, is ANY contest? thanks michael.

Bob Ford, Photographer

	Lehighton \| Pa \| USA \| Posted: 11:28 PM on 10.01.10
	->> I agree. It's not called a monthly photo contest, it's a monthly clip contest, which to me implies that it should follow rules of photojournalism.

Corey Perrine, Photographer

	Augusta \| GA \| USA \| Posted: 11:30 PM on 10.01.10
	->> I agree. Why would you even submit an altered image? The categories are sports action, sports feature, feature, and news. There are no illustration categories. If you want that go to NPPA's monthly clip contest. I'm with Michael. Time to be more specific on the rules.

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor

	San Jose \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 1:33 AM on 10.02.10
	->> Michael, Why should there be a time limit? --Mark

Samuel Lewis, Photographer

Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 9:04 AM on 10.02.10

->> Michael,

I generally agree with the spirit of your suggestion, namely expecting that journalistic ethics will apply to the competitions. However, I question the wisdom of either placing a time-limit or setting a high burden on proving that the image was manipulated.

A person who has acted unethically should not be rewarded simply because he or she has been able to fool the rest of us for 15 days.

Likewise, there's no need to set a high burden. If an image is accused of being manipulated or otherwise false, SportsShooter.com staff members should not be limited in their ability to disqualify an image because the bar for disqualification was set high. If they deem the image to have been manipulated, that should be the end of it. If you're really concerned about bias, then build in an appeal rule where a certain number of other members will also review the original and submitted image, and make a determination as to whether the SportsShooter.com staff members were correct when they disqualified an image.

Limiting the application of the rules to winning images also sends the wrong message. Such a rule basically says that it is okay to violate the rules or act unethically provided you don't win. If you want to be true to the rules that you're seeking to impose, then all submissions should be subject to challenge, disqualification and penalty if the image was manipulated in violation of the rules.

If you really want to discourage attempts at manipulation assuming those rules are imposed, the way to do so is through the penalties (which should be spelled out) that will be imposed for rules violations. The penalty should be sufficiently severe that it will discourage not only the violator but others from attempting to violate the same rule in the future (whether the penalty is a forfeiture of points and/or being precluded from competing for a period of time and/or a public reprimand).

Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor

Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:32 AM on 10.02.10

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor

	San Jose \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 12:17 PM on 10.02.10
	->> I disagree that there should be a time limit on ethics. If there are inconveniences or awkward situations because a transgression was discovered after a long time, then so be it. --Mark

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 1:44 PM on 10.02.10

->> I both agree and disagree.

Obviously a news or sports action image is no place for any manipulations, however, I think in the realm of feature/sports feature its a different issue.

A sports feature image in my mind is a set up shot in the first place so its already a manipulation.

Just as a generic example, lets say someone does the admittedly cliche "hot" bat or golf club image. Put a little rubber cement on there, pose the subject, light it on fire and take the shot. If in post there is some digital manipulation to those flames, does that really change anything ?

Is cloning in extra flame, or maybe cloning out some distracting smoke digitally any different than taking steps to create what is obviously a staged image in the first place ? Is it simply making use of modern technology to reduce the need for a reshoot ?

Again, news and sports action images, thats pretty crystal clear, black and white, right and wrong.

Feature images though ? Sports feature ? Sportrait (aka sports portrait) ??

Does the usage of the image come into play ? I've seen plenty of sports feature images where the subject was obviously heavily retouched, usually in the case of female athletes, in a wide variety of publications.

Where is the line when it comes to creating an image that doesn't fall under the category of action or news ?

Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Jackson \| WY \| USA \| Posted: 1:46 PM on 10.02.10
	->> I think it's been 15 days since Robert Capa took the "Falling Soldier" image. Maybe we should lay that one to rest... kidding

Chuck Liddy, Photographer

	Durham \| NC \| USA \| Posted: 2:25 PM on 10.02.10
	->> jeff, every contest I've ever seen has sports feature designated as a "non-action" shot. the things you are referring to fall in the portrait or illustration category.

Michael Durisseau, Photographer, Assistant

	Santa Fe/Houston \| TX \| USA \| Posted: 2:37 PM on 10.02.10
	->> I'm for the non-manipulation of images...I feel like if you're going to do it here for a contest that doesn't mean a whole bunch (not to demean the clip contest at all), who's to say that you won't risk doing it for something more important than this contest?

Jeremy Harmon, Photo Editor, Photographer

	Salt Lake City \| UT \| USA \| Posted: 7:35 PM on 10.02.10
	->> There shouldn't be a time limit, but other than that I think this is a really good idea.

Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Jackson \| WY \| USA \| Posted: 8:11 PM on 10.02.10
	->> Chuck - I agree. However, the winner of the last two SS.com contests, Dustin Snipes, won the 2009 contest entirely with portraits, er, "Sports Features" as entries... http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2374

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 9:42 PM on 10.02.10

->> Good examples Bradly,

See, that is where there is the gray area in my mind regarding the line between something thats obviously not game action, but that I really wouldn't consider a traditional portrait either.

Certainly there can be photos of athletes that would easily be defined as portraiture, but when the photo is set up to produce an action style image, but under controlled conditions, such as Dustin's sand dune shot, what would that be defined as, and what manipulation, if any, would be okay for someone to do in post on that type of image ?

There always lots of images like that in the contest, and quite often they do really well in regards to the voting. They are sort of an idealized action shot if you will, with the ability to position the camera, use lighting, etc in a manner that you couldn't do during an actual event.

Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor

Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 1:08 AM on 10.03.10

->> For some perspective, SS.com has a broad spectrum of membership, from sports photographers, commercial and advertising shooters, corporate photographers, photojournalists and, yes, illustrative photographers whose work involves a fair amount of digital manipulation in post-production. I think the creators of the contest are trying to keep it open and appealing to the majority of members and not constrain it just because some of us work in a part of the field where we could lose our jobs for simply cloning out a telephone wire.

I'm not saying SS.com's contest rules are bad or good one way or the other, but because the contest has virtually no rules against manipulating images, and because the vast majority of work I produce on a daily basis as a photojournalist ethically disallows me from manipulating images, I don't want to bend or break my ethics for the sake of entering to be competitive with those who do.

Not to say that digitally manipulating my images will somehow propel them into winning entries. Some will say that good photographs should and will stand on their own, regardless of whether or not they've been tampered with. But reality and history has shown that, even in contests that don't allow digital manipulation, some heavy toning to bump up saturation or make lighting a tad more striking was apparent among winning entries.

So, I suppose the contest just "is what it is." At it's core, it really is about what voters think is the "best image" of any given month, regardless of creative process involved in its creation. If you like it, by all means, enter. If you're like me, well, there's plenty of other contests out there for photojournalists to enter where the rules are more defined.

Chuck Liddy, Photographer

	Durham \| NC \| USA \| Posted: 12:02 PM on 10.03.10
	->> I agree with bradly. I'm not going to start manipulating photos to win the SS "clip" contest. this is actually one of the reasons I have started to abhor contests in general.

Corey Perrine, Photographer

	Augusta \| GA \| USA \| Posted: 3:57 PM on 10.03.10
	->> I lobby for a sportrait category in 2011.

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 6:31 PM on 10.03.10

->> I guess all one can do is just do their own best respective work for the time being and follow whatever code of ethics your industry or personal beliefs dictate.

I wouldn't expect a news photojournalist to manipulate their images but I wouldn't think it fair to tell someone who is a commercial/portrait shooter they aren't allowed to do so either.

At the end of the day hopefully you can put your best work forward and hope the voters can appreciate it for what it is.

Maybe that might stack the decks a bit against those who are doing pure news as it does seem the more conceptual stuff gets the votes, but, I think a really powerful news image full of emotion still could do quite well.

When all is said and done I think a contest is just that, a contest, nothing more, nothing less. I've personally never snapped a single frame with thoughts of entering it into a contest. Its just not what motivates me to do what I do and I'd expect the same from most every shooter here.

Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer

Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 12:03 AM on 10.05.10

->> Bottom line, and this should apply to all photos. There is a time and place for altering images - it is just never when associated with editorial work. If it is editorial, then the image should be true, nothing else. If a "sportrait", I love that BTW, is entered, then it should simple have a (Image Digitally Enhanced) next to it. How hard is that. For a non-editorial category where people can be artistic, fine, just say it.

Editorial is editorial. The rest is art. If you remove something (other than a crop) or you add something, it is no longer editorial and should be labeled as such. Maybe it has a home in the Sportrait category, but it has no home next to editorial images.

Part of what makes editorial images great is that someone actually "got" the image. They were there. They had a vision. They released the shutter. They captured the image. Sometimes they capture amazing images. At the point where you fiddle with it, you don't really deserve the same level of respect as someone who was talented enough to do it for real. IMHO. Your art is art, label it so.

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 12:22 AM on 10.05.10

->> Scott, are you really suggesting that photographers who aren't strict editorial photojournalist don't deserve the same respect just because they aren't shooting news ?

Seems a bit self righteous I must say to proclaim any one style of photography is better or more valid than another.

Is a musician who creates a great song in one live take any better than one who toils in the recording studio doing lots of takes to produce their finished song ?

You speak of "vision". For me I think it takes a lot more vision to totally create a scene from scratch, posing the athlete/model, dressing the set, positioning the lighting and everything else that goes with it.

A lot, not all, but a lot of cool editorial shots are simply being in the right place at the right time. You just happen to be in the right corner of the endzone and hit the motor drive as a receiver goes up for the ball and he just so happens to get flipped upside down as he makes the catch.

Great capture of a really unique moment ? Sure is, and I bet its going to be in SI's Leading Off section next week, but did it really take vision ?

I don't think so it, it was basically luck. Unless you can somehow know before hand that said player was going to get inverted before the hit, your just shooting and hoping.

Again, I'm not saying its not producing an awesome image, but I don't see how its any more (or less) respectable than a guy who creates his own shot.

I guess maybe I'm only speaking for myself but I respect the heck out of guys like Dave Black, Robert Seale etc regardless what they are shooting even if they don't always "do it for real" as you put it.

Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor

Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 12:16 PM on 10.05.10

->> @Jeff:

When you say the scenario you describe (capturing an athlete at peak action) is "basically luck," I think that's pretty short sighted. If you've ever shot an NFL, NBA, MLB or other top-level professional sport, you know the action happens in the blink of an eye. The great sports photographers out there are not great because they're really really really lucky. They're great because have a deep understanding of the game they are shooting and highly-tuned sense of anticipation of where that action is going to be. While I would concede that there is some degree of luck involved, I disagree it is the "basic" driver of how great sports action photographs are made.

Interesting you should mention Dave Black - if you look at a lot of his non-portraiture sports work it has a very unique style to it that sets it apart from other shooters, including the sports action he has shot. And to make those photos, in my opinion, requires more vision than luck.

Kelvin Ma, Photographer, Assistant

Boston | MA | | Posted: 4:11 PM on 10.05.10

->> @Scott Serio,

I really hope I'm just reading you wrong, but are you implying that because Corey is lobbying for a "sportrait" category, that it somehow means his photos were "Digitally Enhanced"?

For anyone else out there who is the slightest bit confused... Please don't mistake expert-level lighting technique with digital manipulation (same applies to Black and Seale).

http://chronicle.augusta.com/multimedia/2010-08-12/video-dream-16-special-e...

It's just like shepherd's pie...

Lyle Aspinall, Photographer

Calgary | AB | Canada | Posted: 4:49 PM on 10.05.10

->> I contribute to both the SS contest and to the News Photographers Association of Canada's western clip contest. The way we handle this situation in the NPAC contest is by having an Illustrative category. The rules for that category say:

"A controlled situation intended to clarify or dramatize a preconceived idea. This includes but is not limited to:
- posing subject matter on location ie. an environment portrait;
- food or fashion photography in the studio or on location;
- images that are manufactured or altered."

Contrarily, the 'Feature' rules say:

"A photograph or sequence of photographs depicting a found event or scene not arranged, staged, orchestrated or created by the photographer."

It works quite well with that organization. Entries generally end up in the appropriate categories, and the contributors don't seem to complain about the results.

David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Toledo \| OH \| USA \| Posted: 6:07 PM on 11.30.10
	->> "they should be allowed to request a raw file" Well apparently there's now a work around for that concept... http://www.elcomsoft.com/canon.html

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor

	San Jose \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 7:22 PM on 11.30.10
	->> Eventually, the only way a photographer is going to be outted for image manipulation is for another photographer shooting the same situation and coming up with a different image or an eye witness taking issue according to their memory. The one with the most believability will "win." Integrity and reliability are difficult to earn and easy to lose. --Mark

Joe Morahan, Photographer

Denver | Co | USA | Posted: 7:29 PM on 11.30.10

->> with all the fuss about this....maybe you should only be able to enter a chrome slide.

That would solve all this, however I disagree with limiting the tools an artist can use. I understand a journalist should not alter an image, but what about those of us who are not photojurnlists? Should we not be allowed to enter an image?

I know POYi does not allow for manipulation and that's why I would never enter that contest. Almost every image of mine has digital manipulation and I am proud of all my images. (I don't think that's "selling your soul" or going down a "dark path") it's what I enjoy creating, and I will continue doing so. I put countless hours of work in every image I post, and why should this be frowned upon?

I concur with the fact that certain categories of the SS clip contest do not allow any manipulation, but what is the difference between photoshopping something, and sitting a subject down in a studio for a set up shot? Aren't both somewhat fabricated?

Chuck Liddy, Photographer

Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 7:41 PM on 11.30.10

->> well joe, if you gotta ask, you will never understand. we've been down this path a million times. if you aren't a journalist and don't understand journalism ethics (this site was originally created for sports photoJOURNALISTS) than you just will probably never know or get it. and as I read this thread it's not so much about "set up" photos it's about heavy handedness in imaging.

"I put countless hours of work in every image I post, and why should this be frowned upon?"

Countless hours? On every image? Yikes!!!!

Joe Morahan, Photographer

Denver | Co | USA | Posted: 7:52 PM on 11.30.10

->> ok...you got me there chuck ;)

But why limit the contest to only photoJOURNALISTS? Why not see what others are creating and have an appreciation for something other than what you do?

I sure can look at the photos uploaded here and enjoy them for what they are, why can't you do the same.

I am all for a "digital" section of the contest, but it seems silly to say no photoshopping whats so ever.

Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant

	Boise \| ID \| US \| Posted: 8:48 PM on 11.30.10
	->> Because it's a website for photojournalists. Click "About Sportsshooter" in the sidebar.

Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer

Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 9:39 PM on 11.30.10

->> Sorry...no image manipulation UNLESS clearly stated. Sports Feature, Sports Action, New or WHATEVER. No manipulation. Yes, the "sportrait" shots are entered into the Feature area because they have no other home on here, but, bottom line, it is clear.

Definition of manipulation - anything outside of cropping, toning, simple (minor sharpening), simple burning and dodging.

There is a group in my "arena" that routinely clones stuff out to "clear up images" and they just say they are no affecting to core of the image. I call BS on that. The images are passed off as editorial, can end up on places like ESPN.com and it seems like no one cares.

Bottom line, if the image is repertorial, editorial and/or photojournalistic, the image should be clean - PERIOD. Dustin Snipes is a great photographer, but you will never see him doing any manipulation of images UNLESS it is one of his kick-ass portraits.

The line is pretty clear to me and it should be just as clear to EVERY member of this board.

Brian Blanco, Photographer

Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 9:56 PM on 11.30.10

->> Joe, I guess the issue is that there's nothing in your images that tells me that they're photo illustrations; they're all pretty subtle.

Yes, if there was a separate section set aside only for digitally manipulated images then I could appreciate your images for what they are, but when you enter subtly-manipulated images in a photojournalism contest filled with real images it's misleading.

Where, on your Sportsshooter member page or on your website does it disclose that "Almost every image of {yours}" has been digitally manipulated? The problem is that people see these images and they think they're real. Again, it's misleading. I already think you're a great *Photoshop artist* but if you were to go out and make those same images, for real, in the camera I'd really be impressed and think you're a fantastic *photographer* too.

Entering them in the contest is inappropriate but, respectfully, you already knew that. Either way, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to trust any of your images and I if I'm being honest I have to admit that I resent the fact that it's work like yours (admittedly very beautiful work) that makes all of our images suspect in the eyes of the general public.

(Note: I'm not faulting you for making the images - they're great for advertising work and I have no doubt that you're doing quite well and that's great, but I think you could do a better job of being more transparent about the fact that they're computer generated since your public profile gives the impression that you're an editorial photographer)

Brian Blanco, Photographer

	Tampa / Sarasota \| FL \| USA \| Posted: 9:59 PM on 11.30.10
	->> Oh, and I should note that I don't enter this, or any other contests... so it's not about that at all.

Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer

Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 11:43 PM on 11.30.10

->> I missed this before...from Jeff....

---"Scott, are you really suggesting that photographers who aren't strict editorial photojournalist don't deserve the same respect just because they aren't shooting news ?
Seems a bit self righteous I must say to proclaim any one style of photography is better or more valid than another.
Is a musician who creates a great song in one live take any better than one who toils in the recording studio doing lots of takes to produce their finished song ?
You speak of "vision". For me I think it takes a lot more vision to totally create a scene from scratch, posing the athlete/model, dressing the set, positioning the lighting and everything else that goes with it.
A lot, not all, but a lot of cool editorial shots are simply being in the right place at the right time. You just happen to be in the right corner of the endzone and hit the motor drive as a receiver goes up for the ball and he just so happens to get flipped upside down as he makes the catch.
Great capture of a really unique moment ? Sure is, and I bet its going to be in SI's Leading Off section next week, but did it really take vision ?
I don't think so it, it was basically luck. Unless you can somehow know before hand that said player was going to get inverted before the hit, your just shooting and hoping.
Again, I'm not saying its not producing an awesome image, but I don't see how its any more (or less) respectable than a guy who creates his own shot.
I guess maybe I'm only speaking for myself but I respect the heck out of guys like Dave Black, Robert Seale etc regardless what they are shooting even if they don't always "do it for real" as you put it."---

My Response ---
Editorial is editorial. Art is art. You wanna create an image, that's great. I do it all the time, it is called a portrait. But the second you add editorial and create together, you are being disingenuous. The one caveat is ad work, but again, NOT EDITORIAL. It has gotten photographers fired and it is the number one reason the public just figures we Photoshop everything and nothing is real.

I am not better than anyone else, hell, I am probably not better than most of the people on the forum. What I do know is how to tell the truth with an image. To enter an altered image in a contest and pass it off as TRUE is a lie.

As for you assertion about luck...you better go look at some of your contemporaries. They definitely have vision - Al Bello, Donald Miralle, Bruce Ely, Bill Frakes and Craig Golding to name a few. Do you think they constantly place/win in POY/World Press because they are lucky? Have the best equipment?

It might be something else...

Mike Ullery, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Piqua \| OH \| USA \| Posted: 11:51 PM on 11.30.10
	->> "If it takes more than 30 seconds to fix it in Photoshop, you didn't do your job as a photographer" Moose Peterson (from a conversation around 1999-2000) Obviously that cannot always hold true, but the implication is clear.

Chuck Liddy, Photographer

	Durham \| NC \| USA \| Posted: 9:38 AM on 12.01.10
	->> mike, that was awesome! I am officially stealing that line!

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer

Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 10:48 AM on 12.01.10

->> "...however I disagree with limiting the tools an artist can use."

Joe,

The Sportsshooter contest isn't for artists, it and the site was originally designed for sports PHOTOJOURNALISTS. PJs, as I'm sure you either know or learning, operate under a completely different set of guidelines that frowns upon enhancing colors, removing or adding fragments of other images to create eye candy. I am all artists using whatever tools they have available to create art. I use them myself for my own photo art work. There are hundreds of sites for artists to enter that kind of work around the web. You can enter heavy handed manipulations in those to your heart's delight in those.

However, for journalistic based photo contests images, as others have written above, must tell what actually happened, the naked truth. Photojournalists make images to document an event, condition or individual the way it happen, not the way they envisioned it should happen. The images that photojournalists create becomes part of a much more noble part of human existence, history as oppose to being remembered as just art.

Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Jackson \| WY \| USA \| Posted: 8:19 PM on 12.01.10
	->> I can't believe this thread has been dug up again.

Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Phoenix \| AZ \| USA \| Posted: 8:50 PM on 12.01.10
	->> If you didn't want it brought back up, why did you post on it about 13 hours after it had been touched, bringing it back to the top of the list of threads? I was glad it came back up, and generated some more discussion.

Mike Ullery, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Piqua \| OH \| USA \| Posted: 9:33 PM on 12.01.10
	->> I wish that I could take credit for the line, Chuck. I was working with Moose at a digital photography seminar in the early days of digital and he uttered those words of wisdom. I have stolen/borrowed them many times over the years and do my level best to also live by them. Feel free to borrow them also...I'm sure that Moose won't mind.

Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Jackson \| WY \| USA \| Posted: 10:37 PM on 12.01.10
	->> Aw screw it. Bump.

Tom Szczerbowski, Photographer

London | ON | Canada | Posted: 11:09 PM on 12.01.10

->> "if you aren't a journalist and don't understand journalism ethics than you just will probably never know or get it"

Grammar aside, this statement couldn't miss the point any more. First of all, to suggest that a journalist is inherently virtuous is a highly dubious claim -- countless examples of unethical journalism from those calling themselves "journalists" in just the very recent past can be presented here as evidence of that fact.

Secondly, the use of the term "Journalism ethics" is peculiar to say the least. "Journalism ethics" hardly differs from "ethics" of any other kind -- ethical people in any walk of life know better than to alter, subvert, deceive, etc., etc... Journalistic ethics are not a unique skill set that is foreign to or unlearnable by people in other occupations. In fact, bad ethics is often caught out by mere consumers of newspapers, magazines, etc., people who are untrained in "journalism ethics" but are simply ethical by nature, as in having the innate ability to tell apart right from wrong, honest from dishonest. For example, the Rathergate fiasco was not noticed by other journalists, but by the discerning eyes of, yes, the proverbial guy in his basement(a blogger) who happened to raise questions about the authenticity of the font. Many would say that he had no business speaking up because he was not hip to the ways of "journalism ethics". Well, as it turns out, journalists do not have a monopoly on the truth.

Finally, journalists in this part of the world are not licensed, certified, or regulated, which is to say that anyone -- ethical or otherwise -- may fancy himself a "journalist".

David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Toledo \| OH \| USA \| Posted: 11:25 PM on 12.01.10
	->> Bradly, I didn't dig this thread up on a whim...After reading a new development based on a technology update I searched the message board in order to update the most relevant thread with the new finding...I apologize if I didn't meet your standards and will endeavor to bear them in mind and do better in the future...

Chuck Liddy, Photographer

	Durham \| NC \| USA \| Posted: 2:00 AM on 12.02.10
	->> thanks for "schooling" all of us tom. unfortunately I think you're the one who doesn't get it. but trying to explain this to folks like you is sorta like beating a dead horse.

Tom Szczerbowski, Photographer

London | ON | Canada | Posted: 3:36 PM on 12.02.10

->> ->> thanks for "schooling" all of us tom. unfortunately I think you're the one who doesn't get it. but trying to explain this to folks like you is sorta like beating a dead horse.

I wasn't "schooling all of us" -- just you.

Predictably, your reply is quite unresponsive. Care to actually challenge any points I made on substance for a change, or would you like to stick with ad hominem retorts ?

Kent Nishimura, Student/Intern, Photographer

	Honolulu \| HI \| USA \| Posted: 6:48 AM on 12.03.10
	->> back to the OT here... any word from the "ss.com powers that be" regarding a digital ethics policy? How about creating more categories for the contests?

Louis Lopez, Photographer

	Fontana \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 3:50 PM on 12.04.10
	->> Kent, And that really is the only opinion that matters as it pertains to the sportsshooter.com contest.

Angus Mordant, Student/Intern

Sydney | NSW Australia | Australia | Posted: 5:22 PM on 12.04.10

->> I personally don't see the need for a section in the comps for digitally constructed images as this site is primarily for PhotoJ style shooters and I think digital manipulation is best judged by those who know lots about it which dare I say it, I dont think many of us here do.

I think a section for Portraits or "Set Up" images would ve worth while however not those made with Photoshop.

Just my 2c

Return to --> Message Board Main Index