| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/22/2004 12:55:20 PM · #1 |
//www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0404/editorial.html
Very good article.
Message edited by author 2004-04-22 12:57:16. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:07:39 PM · #2 |
excellent article MeThoS.I agree 100 hundred percent,but don,t you think that all of the media today seems to take a stance on any given subject not to voice an opinion but to improve there own popularity or viewer ratings/circulation figures,hence profit
Message edited by author 2004-04-22 13:10:47. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:09:59 PM · #3 |
Wow. You'd think in 2004 things like that wouldn't happen anymore, but they do...how pathetic.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:12:18 PM · #4 |
| I would like to see the original and the edited version bigger. Maybe they should state on the photo that the picture was edited. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:56:18 PM · #5 |
Some questions:
Does the removal of the severed arm from the photo effect the reportage of this story in anyway? By removing the arm from the photo does that reduce the information we get about that event? Does there have to be graphic images to portray the horror of that event? Is the story about the gore? Does inclusion of gore in a picture impart gratuitousness?
A reputable newspaper or other media outlet of high standards may wish to exclude that part of a photo for fear of being labeled a tabloid. Mind you, I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the author of that editorial.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:57:17 PM · #6 |
If they don't want ripped-off bodyparts in the photo, don't place the photo.
In the same way many news-TV-networks cut in film to avoid that viewers see the whole horrible truth.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 02:04:11 PM · #7 |
Then there was the well respected news photographer who was fired for violating DPChallenge rules by combining two photos to improve the composition, just last year.
Ref HERE |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 02:06:34 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Some questions:
Does the removal of the severed arm from the photo effect the reportage of this story in anyway? By removing the arm from the photo does that reduce the information we get about that event? Does there have to be graphic images to portray the horror of that event? Is the story about the gore? Does inclusion of gore in a picture impart gratuitousness?
A reputable newspaper or other media outlet of high standards may wish to exclude that part of a photo for fear of being labeled a tabloid. Mind you, I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the author of that editorial. |
In so far as journalism goes, there should be no editing of a photo in that manner. As stated in the article, if the image is to graphic then use another one. Why not clone an image of one of the terrorist sneaking away in the background and title it "The One That Got Away". That is as bad as removing aspects of an image. There are supposed to be very strict standards when it comes to Journalism. Even more so than the photographic integrity that we expect here at DPC
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 02:14:14 PM · #9 |
| I dunno maybe I'm wrong, but isn't that illegal? I'm taking television in school (mainly news production). Anyways we had a photoshop class and our instructor told us that under no circumstances were we to ever manipulate an image for the news. NO MATTER WHAT. Weather the reasons be good or bad. Then he told us about some news photographers that have lost their jobs because of edited photo's. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 02:20:35 PM · #10 |
I see nothing wrong with cleaning up a photograph if it is clearly disclosed. Just add to the caption, (Parts of this photograph have been digitally altered due to graphic content). Maybe even include contact information if a reader wishes to obtain the original version of the photograph. At that point, there is no deception.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 02:23:43 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Then there was the well respected news photographer who was fired for violating DPChallenge rules by combining two photos to improve the composition, just last year.
Ref HERE |
I somehow doubt he was fired for violating DPChallenge rules, was he ?
I didn't know we were so influential!
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 02:25:49 PM · #12 |
Suppose they just cropped the picture just above the limb.
Would that be more or less ethical ?
Suppose the photographer recomposed just above the limb.
Would that be more or less ethical ?
The idea that photographs represent 'truth' is always open to interpretation of the photographer, the photo editor and now the use of photoshop - its all part of the same process.
The outrage about this just shows a lack of attention to what already happens when you compose a picture - the camera always lies.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 02:39:52 PM · #13 |
Also wanted to add that the photographer must also be given the chance to approve all changes before they are printed.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 03:32:59 PM · #14 |
In a news photograph, I don't think it would be ok to state that the photo has been manipulated. Then you, as the newspaper, open yourself up to all kinds of ethical questioning. You are boldly telling the audience that you are lying to them to protect them from what you think is a brutal world. If there is a backlash, it would be too easy to forget to tell the audience that the photo was doctored. Or your audience will start assuming you are changing all kinds of things because you did in the past. It's best to have people believe you are presenting the truth. If you feel it's too graphic, then go with another picture.
It's sort of what's happened here. Some people saw that some pictures were enhanced too much and started voting down all the pictures they thought streched the boundries, whether the photographer did alter it or not. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 04:31:49 PM · #15 |
I respectfully disagree. If the fact that a photo has been altered is disclosed and the original version is made available upon request, I still find it acceptable. I see it as no different than adding clarification to a quote by using brakets. For example, changing "according to him that is the case" to "According to [John Doe] that is the case" is a perfectly acceptable and used method in journalism.
Originally posted by pcody:
In a news photograph, I don't think it would be ok to state that the photo has been manipulated. Then you, as the newspaper, open yourself up to all kinds of ethical questioning. You are boldly telling the audience that you are lying to them to protect them from what you think is a brutal world. If there is a backlash, it would be too easy to forget to tell the audience that the photo was doctored. Or your audience will start assuming you are changing all kinds of things because you did in the past. It's best to have people believe you are presenting the truth. If you feel it's too graphic, then go with another picture.
It's sort of what's happened here. Some people saw that some pictures were enhanced too much and started voting down all the pictures they thought streched the boundries, whether the photographer did alter it or not. |
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 05:28:19 PM · #16 |
In the old days, the simple technique (still used by the Federal Government when releasing documents) is to just redact the image -- put an opaque black box over the part you want to hide (often used over the eyes). The modern video equivalent is to select the area and apply a massive blur effect.
Unlike retouching, these techniques pretty effectively demonstrate the (continued) existence of the documentary originals, while allowing the dissemination of the best/only available image sans gratuitous gore. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 05:51:43 PM · #17 |
Excellent point Paul. Retouching without the disclaimer is unethical. And the disclaimer doesn't necessarily give the same effect as in-line commentary in text. The overstamp or blur satisfies both integrity and editorial issues.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 05:55:20 PM · #18 |
| Paul, the calm voice of reason. Yes, that would work. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 05:33:47 PM EDT.
