| 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
Heavy handed edit at NY Times
Gary Gardiner, Photographer
 |
Westerville | OH | USA | Posted: 12:46 PM on 04.02.11 |
->> The Times needs a second look at what appears to be a severe "Hand of God" edit.
http://ur.sel.ph/gQjkV4
Compare with another photo from the same event http://ur.sel.ph/gZMMur
Full story: http://ur.sel.ph/fsEUF8
Sorry if you've reached your limit of 20 for the month. It's inside the paywall. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 12:59 PM on 04.02.11 |
->> I'm not ready to jump on the whipping train yet because it actually looks like an in-camera dodge. I only say that due to the AWB adjusting to a different hue and saturation, plus what appears to be a "straightish" line (from either someone's shoulder, a chair back or card).
Then again if it is an in-camera dodge, where would one draw the line on that's kosher (chair/shoulder) and what's not (holding a card in front of the lens)? |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 1:02 PM on 04.02.11 |
->> Benefit of the doubt -- the photographer might have framed through some audience members, and with the black backdrop and crop (cutting out the table cover), it would have this effect.
- gerry - |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 1:04 PM on 04.02.11 |
->> "Then again if it is an in-camera dodge, where would one draw the line on that's kosher (chair/shoulder) and what's not (holding a card in front of the lens)?"
Good question. Answer -- the people (or whatever the obstruction is) are there, part of the scene. A card you produce from your pocket isn't.
The former is a means of using the content in front of you for aesthetic composition. The latter is basically an intent to deceive.
- gerry - |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 1:39 PM on 04.02.11 |
->> I actually almost got kicked out of my Philosophy class in college because of a very similar topic.
Prof said the same thing but they I pointed out "but 'I'm' there with my (card)". It was an 110 minutes of mayhem and I managed to get half the class to agree with me. :) |
|
John H. Reid III, Photographer
|
Gates Mills | OH | USA | Posted: 1:46 PM on 04.02.11 |
| ->> Thomas - Thanks, now I've got the "Philosopher's Song" from Monty Python stuck in my head all day ;-) |
|
Christopher Szagola, Photographer
|
Richboro | PA | United States | Posted: 2:24 PM on 04.02.11 |
->> to me, it looks like a lower angle then the brighter and also a stop and 1/2 to 2 stops darker exposure. for look at the exposure on the bottle and the highlight on the man's face.
so this can be done without edit.
also the brighter lit image, might have residual flash from another shooter. I don't know I wasn't there. |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 2:28 PM on 04.02.11 |
| ->> Also, if you spot meter on their faces and stop down a tad, it is do-able and a good way to make moody photos. |
|
Gary Gardiner, Photographer
|
Westerville | OH | USA | Posted: 3:10 PM on 04.02.11 |
->> Unless the lighting changes to spotlights or snooted strobes between the two photos, the darker one has been heavily burned.
The nameplate highlights are brighter than the highlights on his face. The angle is near identical. Count the rings on the bottle.
There is no way a lower angle and underexposing by 2 stops would darken the nameplate enough to disappear. If it did so would his face.
The hue adjustment is certainly not going to significantly effect the density on the nameplate. |
|
Adam Vogler, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Kansas City | Mo. | USA | Posted: 3:27 PM on 04.02.11 |
->> Looks to me that the angle is quite a bit different and like has been said before, there appears to be something framing the subjects, judging from the fuzzy straight line Thomas referenced.
This is quite doable in camera. Could it have been done in post, sure, but there is certainly no smoking gun pointing to any unethical behavior.
I'd leave this one alone. |
|
David Butler II, Photographer
 |
Somers | CT | USA | Posted: 3:28 PM on 04.02.11 |
| ->> could be heads in the foreground which are blocking the table and name plate. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 4:17 PM on 04.02.11 |
| ->> I'm in agreement with David, this could easily have been shot through the crowd and had "foreground vignetting". but the fact of the matter is you should image photos from the same assignment (especially with controlled lighting) the same way. you open yourself up to this kind of critical analysis by making the same situation look that different. I wouldn't go tossing rocks at this photographer. and the question begs to be asked, why in the world would anyone risk their reputation on manipulating a friggin photo from a press conference? |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 4:22 PM on 04.02.11 |
| ->> ...oh and of course, G.J. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 4:56 PM on 04.02.11 |
| ->> Nic- It would be impossible to just expose the photo differently because the white table ruffle is one of the brightest parts of the scene. It had to be blocked out one way or another and (coincidentally) it lines up perfectly with the ultra black area in the lead photo, which is what's raising a few eyebrows. |
|
Paul Hayes, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Littleton | NH | USA | Posted: 5:07 PM on 04.02.11 |
| ->> Darker exposure/shot through a crowd seems plausible to me. Note the uneven lower shadow line. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 6:50 PM on 04.02.11 |
->> Sorry Gary, et al... sadly, while there are some excellent theories above, however, they are all incorrect guesses.
Copy the image to your computer and open in any image editor and then push the mid-tones up near the max. You will fine they NYT photo actually is a pair of images cloned on to a black background. You will be able to clearly see the creator of the "photo" used a square cloning tool to create the "image".
Not sure how this was credited, but the photog or the graphic artist deserve an "E" for a terrible effort in trying to deceive their audience. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 7:48 PM on 04.02.11 |
| ->> Unfortunately Clark that is the most serious accusation against a photojournalist you could ever make. I grabbed that photo and opened in Photoshop also....and let's be clear, pretty much everyone knows my stand on ethics and digital manipulation...although that photo is hinkey looking when pulling the levels up I would NEVER call anyone out until I saw the raw file. I certainly hope this young woman didn't manipulate the photo but making a pretty rash statement like you just did is somewhat inadvisable. Again, I ask, does anyone really think that this shooter would jeopardize being a contributor to the NYT's in a market (Tuscon/Phoenix) that she probably OWNS for a press conference? |
|
Laura Segall, Photographer
|
Phoenix | AZ | | Posted: 8:07 PM on 04.02.11 |
->> I am the photographer that created the photos for the NYT.
Clark- This was in NO WAY A CLONED PHOTO!!! I am baffled and severely offended that you would even suggest as much. HOW DARE YOU. I also find it interesting that you would know how I shot the photo....
Christopher Szagola and Adam Vogler pretty much got it right.
The school board members were seated on a stage under a spotlight. The two people in the photo were wearing dark clothing. The backdrop behind them was black. Yes, the table cloth is white but I was shooting from a low angle and the edge of the dark stage where I was crouched created a "foreground vignetting" and obstructed the view of the table.
The room was a dark hole with spotlights on the board members. I shot some images with a flash and some without. This photo was ambient light only.
As Chuck said do you really think I would jeopardize my photojournalism freelance career cloning a photo from a school board meeting. |
|
Andrew Nelles, Photographer
 |
Chicago | IL | usa | Posted: 8:11 PM on 04.02.11 |
| ->> Clark, I believe you are just seeing artifacting from jpeg compression when you push the mids like that. |
|
Andrew Nelles, Photographer
|
Chicago | IL | usa | Posted: 8:15 PM on 04.02.11 |
->> Also.... maybe before making threads like this, contact the photographer with the question. Especially when they are a member here.
Just my opinion. |
|
Gary Gardiner, Photographer
|
Westerville | OH | USA | Posted: 8:16 PM on 04.02.11 |
| ->> My apologies to Ms. Segall for having questioned the authenticity of her photo. Her explanation meets my request for discussion and should quell any more discussion of her ethics. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 8:16 PM on 04.02.11 |
| ->> Well, Clark me lad, there you have it. Maybe you might wanna head to the doctor to have your foot removed from your mouth. I'll take the "inappropriate" hit here. I usually always check a members page or their website before busting their balls over something. Maybe before some of you folks out there should think about doing that before trashing someone on the internet. Just because some folks aren't as competent at the craft as others doesn't mean they manipulated a photo or cloned something in. Your inadequacy as a photographer doesn't mean someone else was dishonest. But, as my Latin teacher said, "There's no cure for stupid." |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 8:50 PM on 04.02.11 |
->> Hey Laura, nice picture.
--Mark |
|
Gary Gardiner, Photographer
|
Westerville | OH | USA | Posted: 9:00 PM on 04.02.11 |
->> Mark,
Nice touch. |
|
Mark Perlstein, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Plano | TX | USA | Posted: 10:39 PM on 04.02.11 |
| ->> There are way to many members who want to call out other photographers. Too many photo cops. Give it a rest. Worry about your own ethics first. IMHO |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 12:37 AM on 04.03.11 |
| ->> Yeah, go debate the "ethics" of buying a 50/50 ticket... |
|
Eric Isaacs, Photographer, Assistant
|
Santa Barbara | CA | USA | Posted: 2:10 AM on 04.03.11 |
| ->> OT personal side note: I hate water bottles and microphones. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 3:41 AM on 04.03.11 |
->> Mark,
While I agree that some here may be a little heavy handed, I beg to differ. Those that have little ethics, give advice to other photographers on subjects that they know little or nothing about, cheat clients or other photographers, set up news photos or manufacture them after the fact can have a direct effect on what I do. Human beings have a tendency to lump everyone together, so contrary to the way the Osmonds song goes, one bad apple CAN spoil the whole bunch. At least when it comes to public opinion. I think it's important that we police ourselves. It just has to be done the right way. |
|
Mark Perlstein, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Plano | TX | USA | Posted: 7:44 AM on 04.03.11 |
| ->> I surely would not want many of you on a jury. It's GUILTY TIL PROVEN INNOCENT on this board. |
|
David Wallace, Photographer
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:56 AM on 04.03.11 |
| ->> For full disclosure, I am Laura Segall's husband and a staff photographer at the Arizona Republic in Phoenix. For as long as Laura and I have been full time working professional photographers (since 2001) we both hold ethics to the highest level of everything we do in our photojournalism. This is in regards to what we do at assignments, what we DON"T do in post and maybe most importantly how we treat people. Even though it is true that a few bad apples can and do spoil the bunch, there is a right way and a wrong way of calling someone out. By questioning and in the case of this thread, downright accusing someone without facts or knowledge in a public forum real damage can be done to someone's reputation and possibly their career. There is a more appropriate and professional way of dealing with questionable ethics in what we do. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 12:42 PM on 04.03.11 |
->> Mark,
You just made my point. That's exactly the problem. The few among us that have poor ethics have caused us to constantly question everything we see. The general public doesn't trust what they see from us anymore either. Obviously there is a right way and a wrong way to question a photograph. I've been in Laura's position and it's infuriating when you know that you've done everything right and people don't believe you. |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 5:04 PM on 04.03.11 |
->> Laura and David:
Your replies Gary's post immediately reminded me of this great clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KakZkh9Iu7U
To quote the great Macho Man Randy Savage, "Oooh yeah!"
- gerry - |
|
Robert Seale, Photographer
|
Dennis Wierzbicki, Photographer
|
Plainfield | IL | USA | Posted: 5:41 PM on 04.03.11 |
| ->> @Robert: "It's a fair cop" |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 8:24 PM on 04.03.11 |
->> I really wish people who click "huh" would say what it is that they don't understand. Just clicking "huh" clears nothing up.
I'll attempt to clarify what I'm trying to say. I'm certainly not advocating that we call people out before we have the facts as was done to Laura, but someone needs to be the "photo cops." To say that I should mind my own business and just worry about my own ethics is tantamount to watching someone get robbed and saying "Well, I'm not involved, so I should just stay out of it." By standing by and watching it happen, the criminal goes on to rob many others. Every time someone sets up or manipulates a photo, the rest of us get robbed a little more of our reputations, so I think that someone else's poor ethics is very much my business.
As wrong as the "Guilty until proven innocent" attitude is, it's been caused by a few bad eggs (some of whom exist on this site). The general public doesn't trust us anymore and, as you can see, we don't even trust our own anymore. That needs to be rectified and policing ourselves is a good start. As I said before, it just needs to be done the right way. |
|
Andrew Spear, Photographer, Assistant
|
Athens | OH | United States | Posted: 10:49 PM on 04.03.11 |
->> Doing it in a public forum such as this only looks to hurt reputations.
If someone came upon this thread too early, or didn't read all of it, or skimmed a handful of posts then they could walk away with the assumption that Laura did manipulate the scene.
Personally, when I'm on assignment and somebody I'm photographing makes a "oh photoshop ________ out" joke, I take the opportunity to explain to them how that's not something we do and how it ends people's careers, etc, and the why of why we don't do that. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 11:43 AM on 04.04.11 |
->> "Doing it in a public forum such as this only looks to hurt reputations.
If someone came upon this thread too early, or didn't read all of it, or skimmed a handful of posts then they could walk away with the assumption that Laura did manipulate the scene. "
In theory this is a good sentiment. But, where do you draw the line? Is it ok to "call out" non PJs on their potential misdeeds? For example, if someone talks about a security guard seizing their equipment should that photographer not bring it up on this forum because it's not fair to the security guard?
The problem, in my opinion, isn't that topics are brought up - it's the rush to judgment by people. This is a topic and example that is worth discussing. Unfortunately, when there is any question of wrongdoing on anyone's part there is almost always a few posters that rush to judgment without independent facts being presented. And, just like media sources all over, sometimes people post with sensational topic titles to draw in readership. So, I think it's valid to discuss this situation in the forum because it's relative to photo journalism. But, sometimes the rush to judge needs to be curbed. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 4:32 PM on 04.04.11 |
->> Good afternoon.
I would like to say I sincerely regret my post above for what wrongly implied that the photographer a photo highlighted by the original poster of this thread had attempted to deceive their audience.
After examining the image with a process that has always led me to ferret out ‘manipulated’ images, I believed, based on my findings that two separate images were cloned into a single frame to create the photo. At the time of the exam, I did not know who the author of the work was as photos on the other side of the links did not offer credit information.
For the record, having worked for an organization in the past that had qualms in ‘enhancing’ images for their editorial products, I was pretty sure that a graphic artist, hoping to create a more visually dynamic image, was the culprit of what I thought was a photo illustration and not the photographer.
In retrospect, after reviewing my poorly written post, I quickly understood the subsequent commentary regarding it as well as the injury and insult I wrote for the world to see. It was not my intention to “call out” the photographer or graphic artist.
Thank you Ms. Segall for challenging my assertion and eloquently laying to rest any doubts about the authenticity of the photo brought to our attention by the original poster. From the tenor of your post, I understand how incredibly insulted and derided you must be at my unintended implication that the photo, which we all know now was your work, was less than honest.
I offer a very sincere apology for my inconsiderate post to you, as well as to any photojournalist who may felt personally offended by my first post in this thread. I am truly sorry.
As I type this, I feel a sense of shame and remorse knowing that my own credibility, and not that of Ms. Segall’s, will suffer from this single, unfortunate post. I fully accept any consequences that may follow and hope that she, photojournalists who may have also took offense as well as the sportshooter community can find it in your individual hearts to forgive me for the transgression and hurt I may have inflicted.
Regrettably,
Clark |
|
Laura Segall, Photographer
|
Phoenix | AZ | | Posted: 7:13 PM on 04.04.11 |
| ->> I appreciate the sincere apology. |
|
Saquan Stimpson, Photographer, Assistant
|
Newark | DE | USA | Posted: 12:43 AM on 04.05.11 |
| ->> I certainly hope this photojournalist didn't manipulate the photo This is a very nice photo. |
|
Saquan Stimpson, Photographer, Assistant
|
Newark | DE | USA | Posted: 12:58 AM on 04.05.11 |
->> Hello guys,
I just finished reading this thread, and have to say that i'm proud of Clark Brooks, It takes a BIG Person to apologize for a mistake. Integrity is VERY hard to come by these days.
Ms Segall, Good work.
To the rest of you guys. Keep shooting. |
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
|
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 3:18 AM on 04.05.11 |
->> Thank you for stepping up Clark. I think you have inadvertently taught us all a lesson on how not to act, and with your apology, how to act online.
And Laura, you showed much more restraint than I would have if I were in your shoes. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|