Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 4/15/2007
|
no, there is no grey area.
What this guy did is no different in principle than what the LA Times did when they fabricated photos about US atrocities in Iraq because they wanted to have a story about that but couldn't find it.
|
|
|
|
Jon O'Brien
(K=11321) - Comment Date 4/15/2007
|
I don't think that the two are even remotely comparable. In the first instance a change to the background of the image (that could have easily been done in-camera, ie, by the shifting focus a few degrees left, or equally acceptably been done by cropping the final image) that has no relevance to the final product, compared to a change which essentially created an entirely new image. Had the image *been* cropped - instead of the photographer cloning out the strangely placed legs - would that have been "comparable" to PS'ing in new elements to change the image? If not, then your original statement is equally non-valid.
Cheers,
Jon
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 4/15/2007
|
it is comparable because you have to draw the line. If he could do it in camera he should have, period.
He was fabricating an image, thereby reducing the credibility of his profession. He was also quite likely breaking rules set by his employer to guard against such actions.
What's next, taking people out of pictures because you don't like them being there?
Like the Soviets removed the faces of politburo members who'd fallen out of grace from the official photographs of earlier Mayday parades in order to change history to the point that those people never existed?
In your logic that is fine as well, after all it could have been done by carefully cloning the images so that they're no longer in it...
|
|
|
|
Jon O'Brien
(K=11321) - Comment Date 4/17/2007
|
No - because removing purged party members changes the actual meaning of the image (which is why it was done). Removing a distracting, ultimately irrelevant element with no relationship to the subject of the photograph makes no change to the subject, intent or message of the image.
A poster on another forum discussing this issue said that by taking a "hard line" against digital manipulation, the mainstream media is trying to reassure consumers that they are safeguarding "truth" in photographic images (thus maintaining a level of trust sufficient to keep them buying newspapers. Of course the same paper still allows cropping, dodging and burning (or digital equivalents), which is still manipulation, is it not?
I realize that this has been done to death in this forum. It just seems to me that in this particular case the photographer should have been cut some slack. He wasn't trying to show things that weren't there, or lead people to feel a certain way about the event. He was just trying to get rid of some funny legs poking out under a sign that detracted from the image. Why he didn't just crop that edge of the photo I don't know.
Happy Tuesday,
Jon
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 4/17/2007
|
the problem is, where do you draw the line?
Say you have a shot of a US soldier in Iraq standing over the body of a civilian and taking aim at the terrorist who just shot that civilian.
For "artistic" reasons and "clarity" you clone out the terrorist, and file the photo without telling anyone what you did.
Later it's discovered what you did because someone else who was there spoke out against the headlines of "US troops killing civilians in Iraq" which follow like clockwork.
Under your reasoning that photographer should not be fired, as he only had artistic reasons in mind...
|
|
|
|
Free Rider
(K=430) - Comment Date 4/17/2007
|
But in your example, he changed the meaning, the story, of the photograph. Editors change journalists words all the time for "clarity".
|
|
|
|
