Allan Detrich - Down in Flames - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/18/2007 12:52:03 AM · #1

THIS ARTICLE from the National Press Photographers Association details a quagmire of problems for Toledo Blade press photographer Allan Detrich.

There are strict rules in photojournalism about what you can and can't do in post processing. Their DIGITAL MANIPULATION CODE OF ETHICS outlines that idea quite well.

The power provided to a photographer by software like Photoshop is too tempting to some. Challenges of integrity seem to be hard to meet these days by some in the press.

Photojournalism and ART photography are two completely different worlds when it comes to post processing images. An ARTIST is allowed to do whatever he/she desires with an image. A photojournalist is NOT. Those who break the rules in photojournalism create a bad name for everyone in the industry.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

04/18/2007 01:03:21 AM · #2

Interesting read John.

colorcarnival

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III

Olympus 45mm f1.8 M.Zuiko Digital Micro Four Thirds

04/18/2007 01:14:33 AM · #3

If they were able to get his unaltered photos after the fact, how were they not seen with the initial uploads? I did not understand their explanation of the upload process.

Here is the link to his webpage. There are good storm chasing photos there.

Allan Detrich

He lives in my town and our local newspaper has surprisingly not jumped all over him.

Tim

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G

04/18/2007 01:18:52 AM · #4

The online photographer has had quite a few comments about the Allan Detrich situation and has lots more relevant links if you are interested

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/18/2007 01:59:51 PM · #5

Originally posted by colorcarnival:

I found is announcement that he was leaving the Toledo Blade a little interesting... lol

alanfreed

Nikon D6

04/18/2007 02:16:44 PM · #6

I read about this in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette the other day (the PG and Blade are owned by the same group). It was a pretty surprising thing to see -- I've seen his photography quite a few times over the years.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/18/2007 02:26:40 PM · #7

For the most part, his alterations to the photos were trivial.

I find this sort of thing much less disturbing than incidents where editorial teams knowingly edit photographs as was the case with many of the photographs published in the US of the Madrid train bombing. Why weren't those people chastised as well?

What about photographs that simply are not published because the editors don't feel the public can "handle" them, no matter how compelling the story they tell?

I understand the role of the code of ethics in preserving the faith of the public in the photograph as document and I do agree that he shouldn't have done it, but I would assert that there are much more egregious cases out there that are un-disclosed.

alanfreed

Nikon D6

04/18/2007 02:54:36 PM · #8

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

For the most part, his alterations to the photos were trivial.

Yes and no. A photojournalist's job is to use photographs to tell a story. They cross the line when they do ANYTHING to manipulate reality. Whether it's something as small as a leg or a stray wire, that's a digital manipulation of what really happened.

Detrich had gone as far as adding balls to sports shots to make things appear more dramatic, and that's going waaaaay over the line. These things are fun and all well and good for the sake of creating art, but there's no excuse for it in journalism.

I know a guy who nearly got fired just for playing with a digital image (if memory serves, he was toying with inserting a golf ball into an image, making it appear as though the ball was coming dramatically toward the camera). He had absolutely no intention of submitting it for anything, but nearly lost his job just because he was seen tinkering with it.

04/18/2007 03:07:41 PM · #9

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
For the most part, his alterations to the photos were trivial.

Detrich had gone as far as adding balls to sports shots to make things appear more dramatic, and that's going waaaaay over the line. These things are fun and all well and good for the sake of creating art, but there's no excuse for it in journalism.

Adding a ball or puck to the shots is not what I would include in "the most part"

My point was not that what he did was in any way OK, but that his actions are not unique, and, in some cases similar actions were condoned by, or even executed at the direction of, the editorial staff at a news magazine such as "Time".

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III

04/18/2007 03:09:05 PM · #10

Digital manipulations are OK in photojournalism in some instances. When it's used, it MUST be indicated. I have never done a digital manipulation for newspaper work, but I have done something called a Photo Illustration.

ANYTIME I set up a shot rather than capture something that is naturally occurring, I MUST indicate that in my credit line. Instead of "Photo by John M. Setzler, Jr. / Hickory Daily Record, my credit line would read:

Photo Illustration by John M. Setzler, Jr. / Hickory Daily Record.

I have seen several instances of heavy digital manipulation in my own newspaper, but they are indicated as so and there is no objective of fooling anyone.

Spaz's statement about being trivial are true. His particular edits were trivial, but none-the-less wrong. The fact that they were trivial makes it even more outrageous in my opinion. Why did he even bother? The sports photo that he modified would not have been a usable sports photo without the manipulation, but ethics are ethics, no matter how we look at it.

My job as a sports photographer is to capture the shot rather than to create it. If we allow digital creation of the 'reality' that prints in news media, there will be no use for photographers in the future of that industry. We would simply be able to create whatever we needed in the digital darkroom.

colorcarnival

Olympus 45mm f1.8 M.Zuiko Digital Micro Four Thirds

04/18/2007 03:10:22 PM · #11

I had seen a lot of his pics, just from reading the Blade. I was greatly disappointed to see the basketball pic and read about the hockey puck.

I can see where one wants to go and clean up things (like the pic with the electrical cord), but that does not belong in journalism.

Was it just me or did anyone else think that the editing on the Bluffton pic was not that good?

MattO

Nikon D4

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

04/18/2007 03:10:28 PM · #12

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

For the most part, his alterations to the photos were trivial.

One of the freelancers for the paper I work for did a redeye removal(very bad job I might add) and it got past the editor and the proof people. It ended up as the lead shot in the paper, he was given a stern talking too about altering them in any way. Its taken very seriously even in small town stuff.

MattO

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

04/18/2007 03:46:38 PM · #13

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
For the most part, his alterations to the photos were trivial.

One of the freelancers for the paper I work for did a redeye removal(very bad job I might add) and it got past the editor and the proof people. It ended up as the lead shot in the paper, he was given a stern talking too about altering them in any way. Its taken very seriously even in small town stuff.

MattO

We remove red-eye regularly without problems. It's not changing the story or the image being provided in a way that would change what the viewer thinks about the photo. There are certain situations, as in the one you described, where the photo should not be used though. If it requires modification that is visible to the viewer, it should not be used.

Jacko

Canon EOS-20D

04/18/2007 03:46:46 PM · #14

Wow. That's bad stuff. I suppose it's just too tempting for a lot of photographers.

FireBird

04/18/2007 03:55:28 PM · #15

After reading all about digital manipulation a question formed:
Can a photo journalist mislead the public without digital, or darkroom manipulation? IOW just by using his abilities as a photographer. And have any been caught doing this and punished?

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

04/18/2007 03:59:34 PM · #16

Originally posted by fir3bird:

It does happen and it has happened recently in Israel, but I can't remember the photographer who was responsible for it. They can simply set up a situation to photograph which is not naturally occurring and create a story that doesn't exist.

MattO

Nikon D4

04/18/2007 03:59:41 PM · #17

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
For the most part, his alterations to the photos were trivial.

One of the freelancers for the paper I work for did a redeye removal(very bad job I might add) and it got past the editor and the proof people. It ended up as the lead shot in the paper, he was given a stern talking too about altering them in any way. Its taken very seriously even in small town stuff.

MattO

We remove red-eye regularly without problems. It's not changing the story or the image being provided in a way that would change what the viewer thinks about the photo. There are certain situations, as in the one you described, where the photo should not be used though. If it requires modification that is visible to the viewer, it should not be used.

I think I remember showing you the photo one day. It can be done, however we were asked after that happened not to do it at all because it was so obvious on the photo that it had been done that the editor got calls on it. We were each given the talk about ethics and what can and cant be done to a photo before submitting for publication.

MattO

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/18/2007 04:00:22 PM · #18

Originally posted by MattO:

Again, I do not condone what he did.

I meant trivial only in the sense that whatever improvements were made to the image by editing in Photoshop had a minimal effect on the effectiveness of the image as an image, not that they were trivial in the sense of ethics in journalism.

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

04/18/2007 05:26:55 PM · #19

this image is almost straight out of camera, with only slight adjustments made to levels and curves...

however, when it ran on the front page of one of the weeklies i shoot for, it ran with the credit "photo illustration by skip rowland". why? because even though the editor knew how i captured the image, she didn't believe the readership would buy that it was a non-manipulated photo...

Message edited by author 2007-04-18 17:27:14.

colorcarnival

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III

Olympus 45mm f1.8 M.Zuiko Digital Micro Four Thirds

04/18/2007 05:28:47 PM · #20

do you mean the ghost like effect is what she thought no one would believe? or is it really a ghost lol.

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/18/2007 05:33:58 PM · #21

Originally posted by colorcarnival:

do you mean the ghost like effect is what she thought no one would believe? or is it really a ghost lol.

yeah, the ghost-like effect. i had the camera on a tripod with a timer and walked through the frame while it was on a slow shutter. the image was to illustrate a story about a haunted plantation house where the owner was murdered by his young wife's lover. now the house is a ruths chris steakhouse ;-)

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/18/2007 05:59:08 PM · #22

Originally posted by Skip:

now the house is a ruths chris steakhouse ;-)

mmmmmmm... Ruths Chris.... *drool*

This Detrich guy gives us "serial digital manipulator's" a bad name. :/

On that note, this issue somewhat baffles me as with so many things these days, there are things that clearly cross the same lines of ethics but are accepted and in some instances like this one, someone get burned at the stake. I certainly don't agree with what he did and I am fully supportive of the journalists code of ethics, but it should also cover more subtle journalistic manipulation - selective use of photos (mentioned by someone earlier in this thread), exclusion of quotes, photos, or parts of a story that may not fit with a journalists or the news organizations political point of view - *gasp* you mean news people are people ith personal views?? Yes, Virginia.

News of all sorts is manipulated regularly. Doesn't excuse what he did, but I would hope this would shine a spotlight on these other breaches, IMO.

In reality though - I don't believe there is any way to enforce the idea of unmanipulated, unbiased, untainted press. I believe the ONLY thing we can do as individuals is take responsibility for broadening and BALANCING our own news sources. I don't trust much of anything I hear from any one source.

that's my digitally manipulated two cents. :)

04/18/2007 08:05:17 PM · #23

IMO this is a much more serious editing breach, yet, I have not heard of any firings/resignations or other rash acts of editorial outrage and protest.

Warning - Severed Limb

Message edited by author 2007-04-18 20:06:06.

idp

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/18/2007 09:11:47 PM · #24

I must admit to being quite surprised by this story.

This is partly because I am not entirely at ease with the use of the word 'photojournalism'. The story seems to imply that any photo taken for or used by a newspaper is an example of photojournalism, whatever the subject matter.

If this were true then presumably everyone who wrote for a newspaper, for example the gardening or cookery correspondent or the author of horoscopes or cartoons would be a journalist.

Is there not, or should there not be, a broad distinction between pictures which are merely illustartions and those which are photojournalism ? The distinction might not be easy but it seems to me that pictures of a basketball player jumping and the accoutrements of a hairdressing shop have about as much to do with journalism as the compilation of the daily crossword.

Given that, in the examples used in the article, the pictures seem to fall into the categories of either space filling trivia or tedious sports fan pleasing nonsense it is hard to regard either as journalism of any kind.

It is, therefore, not the manipulation of the images which is trivial, but the images themselves. Frankly it had never occurred to me before today that suc images should not be manipulated - I had always assumed that they were.

I would reserve the term photojournalism for pictures which contained some sort of information of importance. If for example the hairdressers had been the subject of a helath and safety report due to bad practice with electrics, or the basketball player had been injured during the jump.

While I would certainly be angry were I to find that proper news photos had been tampered with in any way, I really can't see that there is anything that wrong with what has been done here, and while the kind of distinction I'm suggesting might lead to some difficult calls, iot would for the most part be fairly common sense and easy to administer.