| 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
Doctored photo, or photo illustration?
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 8:26 PM on 06.11.11 |
->> it's really a semantic difference isn't it? Photo Illustration is just easier to stomach, doctored "feels" like an admission of guilt ... What the credit should do is spell-out exactly what the manipulation is so that the reader knows what exactly is fake. Looking at the photo I'm at a loss. Is it the text? Then just say that ... photo by: x. text added digitally. The reality is anyone in the field of journalism just needs to stop doing this sort of thing. Even labeling it opens the can of worms. If you don't have the time to do it for real, just don't do it.
Sean |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 11:14 PM on 06.11.11 |
->> I'm actually appalled at the use of "doctored". "Doctoring" just comes with all kinds of sleazy connotations when you use it as a verb relating to anything.
From the Oxford American Dictionary:
verb
[with object]
1 change the content or appearance of (a document or picture) in order to deceive; falsify:
—the reports could have been doctored
alter the content of (a drink, food, or substance) by adding strong or harmful ingredients:
—he denied doctoring Stephen's drinks
Baseballtamper with (a ball) so as to affect its movement when pitched.
We (as journalists) are NEVER to willfully deceive the viewer/reader... So why in your right mind would you ever use a word in the byline that has connotations of deception and trickery?
....
Friggin asshats. |
|
Max Gersh, Photographer
|
Rockford | IL | USA | Posted: 1:31 AM on 06.12.11 |
->> "Doctored" is just ridiculous. If an illustration must be done, it should be labeled as such and clearly state what was done.
In my opinion, if an illustration is the visual answer for a story, it needs to be done in a way that is clearly an illustration based on the image alone. This is not a substitute for ignoring proper labeling. But in an image like this, I can see no reason it couldn't have been shot this way. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 9:06 AM on 06.12.11 |
->> I think a more straightforward explanation could be done.
Sort of the old "Background extended by SI Imagery" that Sports Illustrated would use when a Leading Off didn't quite fit the double truck format.
Here is could be "words digitally added by...." or whatever the "doctoring" was so the reader knows up front: this is a photograph that we added the element of words to. |
|
Willis Glassgow, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Florence | SC | USA | Posted: 9:47 AM on 06.12.11 |
| ->> They use the word "doctored" to be cute and to try to be funny. I'm not sure it worked, but I'm sure that was the reason. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 10:55 AM on 06.12.11 |
->> If the true purpose of this kind of description is to let the viewer know the photo has been altered, "Doctored" is a better choice than "Photo illustration".
Most people outside of the trade have no idea how a "photo illustration" differs from a photo. It's technically accurate, kinda, but it's a weasel phrase. Let's admit to it - but not too much.
"Digitally altered" or something similar would be a better choice to avoid the negative connotations of "doctored".
"Photo illustration" is a cop out. If the photo has been altered, just be up front about it. Don't hide behind trade phrases. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 3:16 PM on 06.12.11 |
->> I was pretty much agreeing with all of the posts so far in this thread. Then I looked at the site in question.
IT'S TONGUE-IN-CHEEK! IT'S GOING TO BE FUNNY TO EVERYBODY BUT PHOTOJOURNALISTS.
--Mark |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
