| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/02/2003 08:18:14 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
04/02/2003 08:33:07 PM · #2 |
I guess if they did not have that rule, they could easily mislead the public. .. wait.. isn't the public mislead anyway? =:\
seriously though... as the article says.. how many have done it without it being noticed?
thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2003 08:40:41 PM · #3 |
| obviously he wasn't a dpcer :) |
|
|
|
04/02/2003 08:44:09 PM · #4 |
...No, I hold myself to a higher and grander standard...I can but I won't.
--Mark Twain
Message edited by author 2003-04-02 20:44:25. |
|
|
|
04/02/2003 10:14:07 PM · #5 |
Hmm I've never really thought about the still pictures I see and what the photographer could have done to them in Photoshop! Kinda scary. It's good that journalist got fired for doing it even if he wasn't trying to mislead anyone (doesn't sound like it) you gotta have those rules.
Now I'm questioning whether or not this photo I got from CNN News is real or not:
 |
|
|
|
04/02/2003 10:45:19 PM · #6 |
Digital editing is indeed an incredibly touchy issue for photojournalists. I know a guy who nearly got fired just for toying with an image (with absolutely no intent for it to be published). He had a shot of a golfer making a drive, and he had tinkered around with superimposing a golfball in the foreground of the shot.
Again, he had no intention of fooling anyone -- he was just messing with it to see what it would look like with a big golf ball in the foreground and the golfer blurred in the distance -- and someone else saw it and almost cost him his job!
BTW, VERY funny shot, ChrisW123! I love it!
|
|
|
|
04/02/2003 11:15:13 PM · #7 |
| Weird, in one field someone alters a project to deceive the public, to get the message he wants and wins an oscar. In another field he gets fired. Dumb world I say. |
|
|
|
04/02/2003 11:24:29 PM · #8 |
the whole *seeing is believing* thing to me is scary with our media--which is why i dont rely on one particular thing, but make a point to cross reference. remember a couple of years ago when cbs used real time digital manipulation to superimpose their logo over all of nbc's logos in times square--new years eve bash? and the cbs director thought it was ethical! sheesh.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2003 12:39:30 AM · #9 |
Looking at the originals and altered. I have to say, with the story that I'm sure accompanied it, it's hard to think the altered image changed the photo/story much, if at all. It would be different had the soldier been standing there by himself in one frame and then the civilians in another, then combine those. Stupid move on his part? Maybe. Enough to fire a 5 year employee? Doesn't seem right to me. Maybe this isn't the first time he's done this?
Message edited by author 2003-04-03 00:40:13. |
|
|
|
04/03/2003 02:05:58 AM · #10 |
|
|
|
04/03/2003 04:42:12 AM · #11 |
Don't see what was wrong with the first image, with a little cropping required, anyway. In fact I think it might have been better - there's more impression of fear amongst the people. Makes it a v odd thing to do.
Thanks for posting this.
Ed
|
|
|
|
04/03/2003 05:59:09 AM · #12 |
To me, the combined images changes the scene drastically. There is much more tension in the combined photos. I can see why he did it: it makes a much more dramatic image. Wrong venue for such a change!
|
|
|
|
04/03/2003 08:24:47 AM · #13 |
agreed. It tells a slightly different story.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2003 09:17:10 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by e301:
Don't see what was wrong with the first image, with a little cropping required, anyway. In fact I think it might have been better - there's more impression of fear amongst the people. Makes it a v odd thing to do.
Thanks for posting this.
Ed |
You are right, there is much more of an impression of fear in the original pictures - you've got a soldier pointing a rifle at a man holding a child. Probably why the picture was altered to show the soldier gesturing to the man with the child to sit down, rather than doing the gesturing with a rifle. A much softer image of the US treatment of iraqi's. Pretty obvious why it was done, though a pretty
stupid thing for a journalist to do, even if it did fit the message he wanted to portray. |
|
|
|
04/03/2003 09:20:51 AM · #15 |
Er, i meant the first of the two pictures - the soldier is gesturing for them to keep down, and not pointing the gun at the child. Gives, for me, a much stronger image of 'protection'. I can see the point with the guy looking at the soldier in the second photo - but with all the people looking away (in the first shot) it givves a stronger impression of fear - what's going on over there? - that's strong enough for a guy with a child to want to stand up.
IMO, of course.
Ed
|
|
|
|
04/03/2003 09:32:32 AM · #16 |
The first one everyone is looking all over the place - no clear composition, no clear focal point.
The second one everyone is certainly looking at the soldier - mainly because he has his gun up and is probably commanding a whole lot more attention - but is still visually at least, threatening the guy with the child, with his gun. There is also an armoured vehicle driving into the rear left of the scene.
The combination of those two is a stronger composition, in my opinion, because everyone is looking at the soldier, who is being very calm and just using his hands to control the crowd - a much softer image of the iraqi invasion - and there isn't a gun turret in the background any more. A very different message from the original two pictures.
Message edited by author 2003-04-03 09:33:58. |
|
|
|
04/03/2003 11:21:03 AM · #17 |
Don't forget that there are 2 photos.. the 3rd or final image is a composite/doctored photo/manip.. whatever you wish to call it.
Manips maybe okay in fashion but not in journalism...especially not in war journalism...
|
|
|
|
04/03/2003 03:48:02 PM · #18 |
It looks like there is photography position available, maybe I should apply.
Yeah, that level of manipulation is very wrong for a photojournalism photo. I think only limited dodging/burning and of course, cropping and color correcting, should be allowed but no manipulation of the actual content. I don't think it should even be an issue of whether or not the manipulated photo chnaged the message. It is suppossed to represent the visual truth as close as possible and any enhancements like dodging/burning should be done only with the intent to show what the photographer's eyes could see more clearly.
T
|
|
|
|
04/03/2003 07:53:42 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by timj351:
It looks like there is photography position available, maybe I should apply. |
what an idea!
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/06/2025 07:36:46 AM EDT.
