Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,730   Posts: 1,670,277   Online: 940
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50
  1. #21
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    ...Perhaps they should add – "To help ensure this policy, all our photographers only use film.”
    Film could be manipulated in the same way, internegs, sandwiching, etc, just impractical in photojournalism, but theoretically possible.

    Any folks who have been around longer know of any such cases of alterations when film was king? Pre2000?
    Andy

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    243
    This is not a film or digital issue, it's a manipulation of reality issue. Unfortunately, Photoshopping of images -pretty rare as best as can be determined- gets far more attention than act that takes place far more frequently - staging.

  3. #23
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,837
    Images
    57
    Well one of the core issues is that if the photographers are taking it to the level of directly modifying images and inserting things that were never there, they're making it about themselves rather than about the subjects.

    On another note if one looks at the bird's reaction when the other bird moves in you'll see that the bird with the frog has recoiled. In no case is the bird with the frog open to the other bird except when it's distant.

    No it's not documentary photojournalism but it is nature photojournalism isn't it? Like I said if the photographs are ever used later for research purposes, etc. - they would be intentionally misleading.

    This is why even something as simple as a bird photograph should be accurate. I commend the Bee for sticking to the time-tested principles of photojournalism regardless of the subject matter. It's called integrity and these days it's rare.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  4. #24
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,837
    Images
    57
    BTW, here's the Guardian totally missing the point and letting the subject matter dictate integrity:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...?newsfeed=true

    They also head down the "since it's taken with a camera, nothing is reality" straw-man route as well:

    "Elliot was on to something. Further investigation revealed that the Great Satan was a serial Photoshopper, once digitally removing a shadow in a sunflower field and replacing it with a sunflower, another time manipulating small wildfire flames to look like ever-so-less-small wildfire flames. So he was summarily sacked. For, after all, in violation of all that is sacred, had he not deliberately misled the reader by manipulating the image to suit his narrative purposes? Yes, he certainly had.

    Exactly like every press photographer does at every newspaper every day and always has. Every photo cropped to eliminate extraneous imagery and every single shot selected from a roll of 24 deliberately portrays time and space to suit a narrative. So does photo processing, depth of field and aperture selection – none of which is neutral. For that matter, every snap represents the photographer's choice to focus on what he or she is focusing on. Manipulation, editing, selective reality: it is the essence of photography. That's what they give out the prizes for (plus luck)."
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,546
    Journalism 2012: You can manipulate the words of the story in any manner you wish to present the "image" you desire, but it is just unconscionable to alter the photo.
    - Bill Lynch

  6. #26
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,188
    Images
    347
    Quote Originally Posted by zsas View Post
    Film could be manipulated in the same way, internegs, sandwiching, etc, just impractical in photojournalism, but theoretically possible.

    Any folks who have been around longer know of any such cases of alterations when film was king? Pre2000?
    This is true, but far more difficult. Would there be a global market for a publication that offered film only images? One that could be more depended on to reveal the truth as seen? It may have a possible potential, particularly in flashpoints like Syria.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  7. #27
    SuzanneR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,797
    Images
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    Journalism 2012: You can manipulate the words of the story in any manner you wish to present the "image" you desire, but it is just unconscionable to alter the photo.
    So true.

    Errol Morris' book called Believing is Seeing addresses these concerns, and the question he brings up... since the picture in the Bee was manipulated, does it really alter the meaning of what the photographer saw and recorded in those few frames?

    Personally, I think it's best to draw a line in the sand, despite the very interesting arguments that Morris puts forth, and not manipulate news pictures, or your credibility becomes suspect. Then again, most news and media outlets aren't very credible these days, so the photography departments seem to have become the whipping boy for diminished standards across the board. And agreed with someone above, film can be scanned and manipulated in precisely the same way as these digital image captures were, so I'm not sure how that would make readers believe what they see.

  8. #28
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Daniel View Post
    Can we put the Sacramento Bee editors in charge of the US Congress? That would be a great, when any manipulation of facts was cause for dismissal.
    Whoa there buddy! Truth in government. The Demopubicans and the Repulsivcrats will have your head for suggesting stuff like that.
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,546
    A close friend of mine ran for City Council one time and they had a debate between about 9 candidates.

    When asked where he stood on the proposed airport my friend answered, "I've always been FOR the airport.. (audience gasps) ..er, NOT being built!".

    Half the people had their jaws open, the rest looked puzzled as can be.

    I wish the news paper would have printed that photograph!

    In the story, it only said, "All nine Council candidates oppose airport".
    - Bill Lynch

  10. #30
    Danielle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    71
    I think its a good thing they're upholding photographic truth to images. The PJ's know the rules, if they want to cheat then like everyone else it can be on their head and Im all for that. If they don't think they're good enough anymore without photochopping, they can quit and give someone else a go.

    Just thinking, If all photo's end up being something every photographer/publisher/editor etc can manipulate, then they also won't be proof in any court anymore either... nor video. Who'd believe it if everyone's unsure? - just a thought.
    All that really matters in the end is the image, not what your using to create it.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin