Sacramento Photojournalist fired for image manipulation
I posted this thread for discussion on ethics of image manipulation done by photojournalist. Yes it's done digitally, but I hope this thread won't get kicked off for this reason. The Sacramento Bee got the heads up from a reader emailed about the alteration. My question is the photo editor culpable for allowing the image to be published? Sounds like there's a zero tolerance for image manipulations in the world.
Don't question "the photo editor" in this case.
I would guess that the photo editing that goes on at the Bee these days does not much resemble what people would presume it does.
Yes, there is and should be zero tolerance for image manipulations in the (US) journalism world. However, lots of folks are fine with it in other types of photography. In fact, the reader comments at the Bee story suggest lots of people (readers, not journalists) are okay with it in this case, too.
The photog should've know better.
This isn't model mayhem it's a freakin newspaper.
Where does it stop?
it's too bad because - looking at his images - he's got a great eye and doesn't need to do any of that.
Yes he's very talented. He's been doing it for decades. I guess this is a cautionary tale for other photojournalist.
Originally Posted by dasBlute
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Good for them.
Due to the power of images, banning manipulation for news is, and should be sacrosanct.
However for pictures of birds and "pretty pictures" the crime is far less egregious. But he knew the rules.
Historically "news" pictures have been manipulated in the past in many forms, often in the case of Weegee during the taking of them, for dramatic impact.
For a photojournalist, I can definitely understand the desire to pump up, remove distractions, or introduce more impact by manipulating photographs without changing the intent, or truthfulness of the photograph. Cropping, and burning and dodging has been used since day one for this purpose, but now with photoshop it's so easy to manipulate an image that every photographer often takes shots with this in mind from the outset.
That's what makes photojournalism, such a specific form of photography. It has to take on a form of truth.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
When I was a kid Brokaw, Jennings, et al. read the news, now it seems that Beck, Maddow, et al. interpret the news....seems that some photogs might be caching in on that idea too?
For one thing there was what... 4 channels and UHF back then.
Originally Posted by zsas
Try surfing the myriad of cable/sat rubbish thats out there now.
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.
All I can say in the photographer's defense is, It's a f**ging bird festival, eh?? Not like he put a knife in the President's hand or something. That's probably what was going through his mind, eh, it's not really news news, I'll just make this more interesting.
Doesn't make it right. Too bad, but right decision, in my opinion.
Who's to say that later such a photograph might not be used in research of these particular birds and/or their feeding patterns and intra/inter group behavior?
Originally Posted by Dan Daniel
Anyways, he missed the shot he wanted and tried to fake it. Will only get worse with the current crop of "photographers" behind the wheel.
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.