MODERN PHOTOSHOP COLOR WORKFLOW
Publication Retouching,
Ethical and Otherwise
Three
interlocking threads about seven separate cases discuss what's proper, what's
improper, and how to draw the line.
___________________________________________________________________________
I. The Mojo of Mascara
From: Boris Feldblyum
Date: December 22, 2011 7:22:12 AM EST
Subject: [colortheory] US Moves Toward Banning Photoshop in Cosmetic Ad Photographs
http://www.petapixel.com/2011/12/16/us-moves-toward-banning-photoshop-in-cosmetic-ad-photographs/
Boris Feldblyum
NOTE: the link refers to a ruling by the National Advertising Division, which is not affiliated with the U.S. government, that Procter & Gamble could not use a certain ad for mascara, because the model's eyelashes had been made to look thicker than could be accounted for by the makeup. This followed a ruling by the UK counterpart, the Advertising Standards Authority, that a Lancome ad featuring Julia Roberts was impermissible because retouching had made the skin far more flawless than the facial makeup being advertised could.
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Laurentiu Todie
Date: December 22, 2011 9:08:32 AM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] US Moves Toward Banning Photoshop in Cosmetic Ad Photographs
"Too much retouching" cannot be defined by human beings
(not in the current state of intelligence
: )
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Pylant
Date: December 22, 2011 9:19:34 AM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] US Moves Toward Banning Photoshop in Cosmetic Ad Photographs
A Taylor Swift Covergirl ad was just pulled for the same reason.
http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/21/taylor-swifts-covergirl-ad-pulled/?hpt=hp_bn7
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Arye Rubinstein
Date: December 23, 2011 2:12:11 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: US Moves Toward Banning Photoshop in Cosmetic Ad Photographs
...but how does this differ from what is already in effect under the Federal
Trade Commission's Truth in Advertising regulations
<http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus35-advertising-faqs-guide-small-business>
People are just pushing the envelope more and more to see what can be gotten
away with.
When it comes to food, most stylists when working on an ad know you need to
mostly stick to the recipe, even for fast food stuffs. When working on a recipe
book editorial stuff it just needs to look good. Fast food needs to be cooked in
a similar way but can be assembled in a way that looks great using the same
ingredients. The ingredients can be hand picked from many and hand assembled.
The fact that the restaurants won't assemble your sandwich that way in the time
allotted to keep consumers happy doesn't make it untruthful. Plastic models are
untruthful if sculpted based on what you want it to look like. A double box of
Jello used in a single box recipe is wrong for an ad even if it is "just so it
will last longer under hot lights" but to illustrate a recipe book it is OK.
As for make-up products who is there to say that is to much when there is no
Ôbefore' shot to compare with and the retoucher and art director don't realize
what is too much and dont know the laws already in effect.
Remember the NAD and the BBB are not government organizations but industry
supported watch groups to keep all in line. What they are doing is interpreting
the FTC's regulations to be. If the retouchers and ADs insist on making things
look Ôtoo good' for situations it shouldn't be they are doing it to themselves
and their employers. The the final decision is still up to the advertiser as to
what to run with, then if the industry says no it is a small step before a
competitor screams FOUL in advertising and they and the government step in.
This should be looked at as a lesson to all that are unfamiliar with how to
interpret the FTC regulations, like it or not. It has been a while since the
government has stepped in. This is just the step before a competitor and the
government step in. If Ad Men ever comes back on TV these would be good
story-lines to see how much it really costs to pull an ad, rework it and where
blame gets laid.
SapereAude,
Arye P. Rubenstein
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Margulis
Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:04 pm
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: US Moves Toward Banning Photoshop in Cosmetic Ad Photographs
Deciding how much retouching is excessive starts us down a slippery slope but it
seems to me that the move crosses the line when it materially misrepresents the
product being offered for sale. Here it is alleged that Photoshop was used to
lengthen the model's eyelashes. I have no problem with that move if the
advertisement is for blusher or lipstick.
This advertisement, however, is for mascara. If they want to touch up her lips
or her cheeks, that's fine with me, but they have to leave the eyelashes alone.
To me it is the Photoshop equivalent of what a soup company did some years ago
to promote their "chunky" soups. The bowl of soup belng photographed had been
filled with marbles, to force more vegetables and meat to the surface. The
photograph was accurate, but it was unethical IMHO to prepare the scene in this
manner. And the ad was properly withdrawn, as this mascara one has been.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Pylant
Date: December 22, 2011 1:37:59 PM EST
Subject: Re: [SPAM?] Re: [colortheory] US Moves Toward Banning Photoshop in Cosmetic Ad Photographs
I mostly stopped eating fast food, but I've still never received a Big Mac
or a Whopper that looks *anything* like the photo on the menu board or in
the TV commercial... do they still use molded plastic models for those? I
know at least as a certain time staging the food for the photo/video shoot
was SOP for the fast food industry...
BRIAN PYLANT
___________________________________________________________________________
From: David Creamer
Date: December 22, 2011 3:38:43 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: US Moves Toward Banning Photoshop in Cosmetic Ad Photographs
The title of the article is misleading, since the term "US" implies the
government. The ad was banned by a self-policing industry agency-which
usually means things would have to be pretty bad before they ever acted on
anything.
As far as the topic of retouching, I feel there should be a strong
truth-in-advertising policy. Dan mentioned that it might be OK to retouch
eyelashes for a lipstick ad (paraphrasing here), but the overall
psychological impact of the retouching would create an image that is sexier.
The /psychological/emotional impact, especially to a younger person, would
be that the lipstick would make one look this good OVERALL even though
reality is only ones lips would change. What if the retoucher modified the
SHAPE of the lips for a lipstick ad? Nothing TECHNICALLY wrong with that,
but the emotional impact to the view would be that one's lips would look as
good.
I may be one of the few dissenting voices, especially on this list, but I
find excessive retouching of advertising models distasteful and harmful to
younger viewers/readers. It creates an artificial, unobtainable goal of
beauty. For a retoucher, it is a hard choice to turn away work, especially
if one is a freelancer. One can logic that if I don't do it someone else
will, but that still does not make it right.
David Creamer
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Duane Ruck
Date: December 24, 2011 2:41:40 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: US Moves Toward Banning Photoshop in Cosmetic Ad Photographs
It seems to me to be equally distasteful to have people make assumptions that, because others are young,they are unable to distinguish reality so someone- generally those making the assumptions- should be allowed to police the universe to make it safe for whatever.
Even below average minds can look around and recognize that no one they've ever seen in real life looks as good as the people pictured in ads or on movie screens.
Regards,
Duane Ruck
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Arye Rubinstein
Date: December 24, 2011 4:36:20 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: US Moves Toward Banning Photoshop in Cosmetic Ad Photographs
I think we have a candidate for one who is in favor of artificial genetic
enhancement and consumer fraud.
BTW Duane you to can be one of the "police" if you are moral enough to be
truthful in advertising. Specially since the rest of the police may be your
clients and bosses. Remember it is "truth in advertising" not "truth in fine art"
Truth in advertising is about what one (a consumer) can reasonably expect. In
this case, for mascara, it is about increased shape, definition, color, contrast
and slight lengthening, not doing what fake eyelashes do with mascara.
With or without realizing it we all have benefited from this 'police protection'
and they have made us wiser... you too Duane.
Sapere Aude,
Arye P. Rubenstein
___________________________________________________________________________
From: J Walton
Date: December 25, 2011 2:48:03 AM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: US Moves Toward Banning Photoshop in Cosmetic Ad Photographs
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Arye P. R. wrote:
I think we have a candidate for one who is in favor of artificial genetic
enhancement and consumer fraud.
Uggh. You're laying it on a bit thick. The OP was simply saying that
we should give young people more credit than that, and that perhaps
learning the lesson that all advertising is a lie is not such a bad
thing. You don't have to agree with him, but saying that this is a
strawman argument is actually insulting to strawmen.
What is artificial *genetic* enhancement anyway?
Truth in advertising is about what one (a consumer) can reasonably expect. In
this case, for mascara, it is about increased shape, definition, color, contrast
and slight lengthening, not doing what fake eyelashes do with mascara.
I agree with that, except for the reasonably part. I couldn't
reasonably expect to get a burger from McDonald's that looks like
that, even if there were little to no retouching done. The lighting
doesn't look anything like my house, my car, or a McDonald's, and the
buns and meat are just too perfect.
For that matter, has anyone noticed that makeup models are unusually
(and unrealistically) attractive? False advertising!
The problem with this ad is bad retouching, and that's it. If you
retouching something and someone can tell (and a competitor cries
foul), you're either not very good or an art director pushed you too
far. Either way, it's bad retouching IMO. The whole point of doing
good work is flying under the radar and making your adjustments
undetectable. I've taken 20 lbs off of a swimsuit model before, and to
me the after looked more natural than the before. The point was not
about the model, it was the swimsuit, and after the correction you
noticed the swimsuit more. It's not false advertising, it's just
advertising. It *should* have a negative connotation - someone is
trying to sell you something.
With or without realizing it we all have benefited from this 'police protection'
and they have made us wiser.
<sigh>
J Walton
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Duane Ruck
Date: December 24, 2011 11:37:45 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: US Moves Toward Banning Photoshop in Cosmetic Ad Photographs
Actually it's just that I believe the consumer is much more suited to 'police' things than any official bureaucracy ever could or would be. They do so with their own hard earned money- or the withholding of it.
Measuring the mascara is a pretty ridiculous reason for being for officialdom with its propensity for costing the consumer forever.
Apparently the industry's own self policing does work for the most egregious misbehavior in advertising.I applaud that.
As for making me wiser or as you state 'all of us' that is precisely the point you have missed.You may speak for yourself.If you have attained a bit more wisdom, I applaud that too.I'm a firm believer in self improvement. Just don't assume all of humanity has your same need and requires massive assistance by way of force of law. You might just be unique or a rare example ;)
Regards,
Duane Ruck
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Laurentiu Todie
Date: December 25, 2011 9:19:22 AM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: US Moves Toward Banning Photoshop in Cosmetic Ad Photographs
Most retouchers I know are artists in waiting, who prefer the craft to waiting on tables, like the other tens or hundreds of thousands artists.
They are fully aware that art[work] is not THE TRUTH, but one truth of many.
Consumers should be, and for the largest part are aware of it too; just ask a woman if she thinks that models are natural, or ask a man if he'd buy an electric chain saw by ad only.
___________________________________________________________________________
From: James Gray
Date: December 25, 2011 7:52:50 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: US Moves Toward Banning Photoshop in Cosmetic Ad Photographs
As someone who has never been involved in the production of advertising, I
am saddened and enlightened to see this exchange. I personally think a
significant fraction of the public is quite gullible. Maybe a better term
is that they are part of the booboisie. I like the fact that there are
watchdog groups in the advertising business. I am glad there is not an
"anything goes" attitude among most of the people responding to this.
James Gray
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Margulis
Date: December 26, 2011 1:51:31 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] MODERATOR NOTE Re: US Moves Toward Banning Photoshop
Auden once wrote,
I'm for freedom because I mistrust the Censor in office:
but, if I held the job, my!, how severe I should be.
This thread discusses the sorts of things that retouchers may be asked to do with pictures, whether the requests are ethical or not, and whether they run afoul of any standard or law. This subject is on topic for our group.
Some of the messages, however, at least hint at matters of politics, the proper role of government in policing our lives, and so on. These I find boring and suspect that others do as well. Furthermore, they're useless because no resolution is possible. Nobody wants to go back a hundred years when American publications were littered with advertisements for quack remedies, promising guaranteed cures for everything from hemorrhoids to the plague and often actually harming the gullible who bought them. Every civilized country that I know of has some means of regulating advertisements containing dubious health claims, and AFAIK nobody opposes this concept. Whether it should extend to things like makeup ads is only a matter of degree.
Accordingly, the list is hereby notified that references, oblique and otherwise, to our political system in the course of this thread will result in rejection of the post. Since the specifics of this incident (the retouching of a mascara ad) have likely been discussed enough, I am starting a new thread about another incident. I am assuming that this thread will now die fairly quickly, although if anyone wants to make further (nonpolitical) commentary it remains open.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
II. Of Fire and a Firing
From: Dan Margulis
Date: December 26, 2011 2:19:35 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Ethical Retouching--another case
In light of the related thread on facial retouching, I want to find out if there is any dissent on the following case. I use it at Photoshop World for discussion, and just want to make sure that I'm not stating something as generally accepted when it isn't.
Case:
The photographer works for a newspaper in 2006. He is noted for his pictures of fires and has won awards for same. At the scene of a fire, he sees a firefighter on a ladder, with a setting sun in the background. He thinks this would make a striking picture, but is worried that if he shoots directly into the sun like this he is not going to get anything in the sky to work with. He therefore deliberately seriously underexposes, planning to restore the color and lighten later in Photoshop. This plugs the firefighter completely, but the photographer does not care as he visualizes the firefighter as a silhouette only.
The picture appears as the photographer planned it in the newspaper. The newspaper then fires the photographer for violating its truth-in-journalism policy. Here is the direct quote from the newspaper story explaining why:
In the original photo, the sky in the photo was brownish-gray. Enhanced with photo-editing software, the sky became a deep red and the sun took on a more distinct halo.
[The newspaper's] photo policy states: "No colors will be altered from the original scene photographed."
[The photographer] said he did not intend to mislead readers, only to restore the actual color of the sky. He said the color was lost when he underexposed the photo to offset the glare of the sun.
In a letter to staff members explaining the firing, a newspaper official wrote:
Those of you who have worked with [the photographer] know he is an extraordinary photojournalist who won tons of awards and was willing to drive into hurricans and jump on a plane on a moment's notice...He has a talented eye, a love of news and great energy for the work. This is not an ending any of us wanted. We will miss [his] passion for photojournalism.
We must hold fast to the standards we set for ourselves and our profession. Credibility is fragile and precious.
I think this description speaks for itself but if anybody wants to refer to the newspaper page with the photo on it, I've put it in the Miscellaneous folder of our Photos section,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/colortheory/photos/album/410631218/pic/list
or a direct, I hope, link
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/colortheory/photos/album/410631218/pic/1286038690/view?picmode=&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc
My position at Photoshop World is that the management of the newspaper has no more common sense than a senile cow. Read the quote again: "In the original photo, the sky...was brownish-gray." This picture was shot directly into a setting sun. How can "brownish-gray" possibly be correct--even if we don't have the photographer saying that he deliberately underexposed to protect detail? It is the photograph itself that is the lie, not what he did to it afterward.
When I made this statement at Photoshop World in September it seemed to get a good response. However, this incident was controversial when it occurred in 2006 and was discussed at length in many groups. Shockingly, about half of the photographers who wrote at that time favored management's position. The common explanation: the photographer must be limited to color-adjustment techniques that could have been achieved in a darkroom using film. As this particular maneuver was much stronger than could have been produced in a darkroom, it was a violation of whatever rule this purports to be.
Anyhow, if anybody takes a different position than mine, I'd like to hear about it.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
From: J Walton
Date: December 26, 2011 2:53:47 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Ethical Retouching--another case
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Dan Margulis wrote:
...At the scene of a fire, he sees a firefighter on a ladder, with a setting sun in the background. He thinks this would make a striking picture, but is worried that if he shoots directly into the sun like this he is not going to get anything in the sky to work with. He therefore deliberately seriously underexposes, planning to restore the color and lighten later in Photoshop. This plugs the firefighter completely, but the photographer does not care as he visualizes the firefighter as a silhouette only.
He should have bracketed, but his overall plan seems sound.
The picture appears as the photographer planned it in the newspaper. The newspaper then fires the photographer for violating its truth-in-journalism policy. Here is the direct quote from the newspaper story explaining why:
In the original photo, the sky in the photo was brownish-gray. Enhanced with photo-editing software, the sky became a deep red and the sun took on a more distinct halo.
Truth-in-journalism should have to do, not with the original photo,
but the original *scene*. I'd imagine the sky was not brownish gray in
the scene were you standing there.
[The newspaper's] photo policy states: "No colors will be altered from the original scene photographed."
That policy is asinine, and has nothing to do with truth-in-journalism. But if that is the policy, he clearly violated it every time he made a color correction. Of course, the newspaper did as
well every time they used an ICC profile to convert an image. Actually
the printing process itself alters the colors of the original image.
It's a slippery slope when you have stupid policies.
[The photographer] said he did not intend to mislead readers, only to restore the actual color of the sky. He said the color was lost when he underexposed the photo to offset the glare of the sun.
That's where bracketing would have saved him. To my taste, the sky
doesn't look right at all, and is begging for someone to call it out
as a fake. I could see the newspaper firing him as a retoucher but
keeping him on as a photographer. But one image can't tell the story,
he might be quite good at Photoshop and perhaps this one image just
looks funny. I've had my share of bad corrections over the years.
In a letter to staff members explaining the firing, a newspaper official wrote:
Those of you who have worked with [the photographer] know he is an extraordinary photogjournalist who won tons of awards and was willing to drive into hurricans and jump on a plane on a moment's notice...He has a talented eye, a love of news and great energy for the work. This is not an ending any of us wanted. We will miss [his] passion for photojournalism.
...because they are stupid and have ridiculous policies and should
have killed this photo before it printed, not killed his career after.
We must hold fast to the standards we set for ourselves and our profession. Credibility is fragile and precious.
True that.
My position at Photoshop World is that the management of the newspaper has no more common sense than a senile cow.
Senile cows around the world were initially insulted at this
comparison, but then immediately forgot why they were upset.
The common explanation: the photographer must be limited to color-adjustment techniques that could have been achieved in a darkroom using film.
OK, that's even dumber than the photo policy. So you can change the
image, you can use a computer to do it, but you have to limit yourself
to darkroom methods? There has to be a better target than that. Give
me a break.
It gets back to the same issue we faced with the Julia Roberts image.
Good retouching is so good that nobody thinks anything has happened to
it, and the original image looks weird in comparison.
J Walton
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Iliah Borg
Date: December 26, 2011 2:48:31 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Ethical Retouching--another case
The common explanation: the photographer must be limited to color-adjustment techniques that could have been achieved in a darkroom using film. As this particular maneuver was much stronger than could have been produced in a darkroom, it was a violation of whatever rule this purports to be.
The explanation is nothing more than utter nonsense. Many of us are (were) routinely doing these sorts of things in a wet darkroom.
The newspaper's "No colors will be altered from the original scene photographed." is too funny. Reproduction of colour is far from perfect on any media, be it the film, the digital, or their own printings in the newspaper. Especially it is the case when heavy under- or overexposure is applied during the shoot. So, did they see the original scene to witness the colours being altered? Do they prohibit using any filters on the lenses, including polarizing filters? Do they dare publish black and white photos?
--
Iliah Borg
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Bean
Date: December 26, 2011 4:27:19 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Ethical Retouching--another case
so we have viewed colors that do not exist in a newspaper workflow, we make
a reasonable effort to emulate what our eyes can interpret... we bump up
the saturation appropriate to the output demands and lose our job... I think
there is more to this story than just the color Ôadjustment'...
would the guy still be terminated if the image ran as a b&w and he elected
to initiate a little channel blending to Ôrecreate' the tone values... I
see no problem anticipating a bunch of black ink killing my image and doing
something to help communicate what occurred...
if the image were to run as a full page paid ad produced inhouse by the
paper..my question would be: 1) fire the photographer ?
or 2) give him another award.
huge waste of resources... I don't see any Ôbait/switch' in the newspaper's
reporting of a fire... most late evening/night fire Ôaction' shots are
begging for some help....
I think the Ôethics' mentioned are just an excuse to terminate the
photographer...
jim bean
___________________________________________________________________________
From: J Walton
Date: December 26, 2011 3:04:47 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: US Moves Toward Banning Photoshop in Cosmetic Ad Photographs
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 5:49 AM, David Creamer wrote:
It is a known scientific fact that young persons (age .01 to about 24)
brains are not fully developed
The advent of the XBox seems to have pushed this back to at least 27.
It's amazing how immature a 23 year old is nowadays.
(although females' brains develop earlier
than males-ask any wife).
I think less of them like XBox. There is no other explanation.
It has nothing to do with being below average. No after the mid-20s, it
might be an issue of the reader/viewer being below average. Does that mean
we, as a society, should let them be taken advantage of?
Half the people in the world are below-average. That's a lot of people
to protect, as a society.
If we simply let the market determine what works and doesn't, perhaps we
should bring back popular cartoon charters selling cigarettes during family
shows. Of course we know advertisers were only selling them to the adults
watching, never trying to entice the younger audience.
This argument is quite sound, except for all of the words and the
overall point. :-)
I think we're talking about image manipulation, not sketchy marketing
tactics. The question, I thought, had to do with what we do as
retouchers. How far do *we* take an image? My answer remains unchanged
- you take it as far as the image allows you to go without somebody
noticing. If they don't notice, they don't complain.
J Walton
___________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Demyan"
Date: December 26, 2011 3:49:26 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Ethical Retouching--another case
Based upon the newspaper's policy, all of the photographers that work there
should submit only Black/White photos.
Throw the charcoal-color back into their "politically correct" BS faces.
Mike Demyan
___________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul D. DeRocco"
Date: December 26, 2011 6:05:17 PM EST
Subject: RE: [colortheory] Ethical Retouching--another case
A paper can be photojournalistically dishonest without violating its
retouching rule, simply through a selection bias, for instance by always
choosing pictures of the candidates in an election that make their favored
candidate look more appealing than the ones they oppose. Since the question
of whether the sky in this case was red, or pink, or brown is of no news
significance whatsoever, this could be an effort on the part of the paper to
ostentatiously flaunt its scruples about journalistic ethics, while leaving
itself utterly free to be unethical in other more important ways. Sort of
like the way some newspapers print prominent corrections of irrelevant
minutiae while leaving more egregious misstatements untouched.
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Andrew Webb
Date: December 27, 2011 12:16:11 AM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Ethical Retouching--another case
He would have had a better argument if he had bracketed, because it would have shown "what could have been."
However, I think that news photos should be shot and then given to the production team. Individual photogs shouldn't be doing their own "lab work", because that A. Wastes time and B. Opens them up to temptations and accusations of "interpretation". I think news photos probably shouldn't even be RAWs—if you can't get the shot, you can't have it, either. What he did was post-production to achieve a picture that could not be achieved in-camera, and that isn't true to the spirit of news photography.
I don't think it was the right decision to fire him, since it had no effect on the story itself; it wasn't prejudicial or even representationally false.
/webb
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Jacob Rus
Date: December 27, 2011 5:42:57 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Ethical Retouching--another case
Andrew Webb:
However, I think that news photos should be shot and then given to the
production team. Individual photogs shouldn't be doing their own "lab work",
because that A. Wastes time and B. Opens them up to temptations and
accusations of "interpretation". I think news photos probably shouldn't even
be RAWs—if you can't get the shot, you can't have it, either. What he did
was post-production to achieve a picture that could not be achieved in-camera
and that isn't true to the spirit of news photography.
This seems entirely ridiculous to me. The production team was seldom
there (either in the scene, or in the photographer's head), and can't
possibly do work that isn't "interpretive" – but an interpretation
based only on general knowledge and the original image file, instead
of any first-hand evidence.
News photographers should capture the best material they can, and
print the best final prints they know how, trying to match their own
experience and impressions. Color is inherently subjective and
emotional, and every printed medium necessarily looks dramatically
different than the world, newsprint more than most (for instance, we
don't have the sun shining out from behind our morning newspaper, and
printed smoke doesn't fill our field of view and leave our eyes
stinging); trying to make it a rigorous or "objective" process is a
fool's errand. Keeping the final print true to the scene depends on
the skill and discretion of the photographer and printer, and there
are certainly lines to be crossed, but this particular example isn't
anywhere close: whoever had this photographer fired clearly doesn't
know the first thing about image technology or practice, and should be
either learn some basics or find a different job.
Cheers,
Jacob Rus
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Andrew Webb
Date: December 28, 2011 5:21:54 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Ethical Retouching--another case
What you are describing is Editorial not News. The least amount of interpretation is best for News; that is why I suggested jpegs be shot, and then printed as shot, with adjustments only in the CMYK to ensure decent repro. The camera, lens and framing choice and picture editor do enough "interpretation"; we don't need an additional layer of questionable emotional/artistic choice on top of that. Newspapers used to have a lab, and the lab just made the selected frames printable for the paper. Why should that change now?
Trying to make it as objective as possible is not a "fools errand", and it certainly doesn't mean that we should automatically head in the opposite direction; that's like saying that we shouldn't calibrate our equipment to a known standard because nobody will ever look at our output in a light booth.
/webb
Andrew Webb | www.seriousretouching.com
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Davis
Date: December 27, 2011 6:27:54 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Ethical Retouching--another case
I guess my view would open a can of worms, but how a photo has been
"enhanced" can be described. Journalism isn't advertising.
Photojournalists have a professional obligation to be very careful, to
be honest about their methods. I'll go even further and say that in
some cases even the choice of framing for a shot should be explained
in context of other options for framing.
Leading the viewer to a certain opinion isn't the sole role of a
photojournalist. Giving people as complete a context as is possible
would be more honest, and if a shot directly or purposefully limits
the context then a photojournalist has ethical considerations to make.
Henry
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Arye Rubinstein
Date: December 27, 2011 7:20:33 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Ethical Retouching--another case
As I see it the image as posted is just too clean. I want to know where is the
fire? If there was some smoke left in the image it would be more realistic.
There is a reason firefighters wear breathing aparatis (as this one is) that is
so the water can be nearly overhead. This image as it is would be great for a
firefighting catalog or perhaps as an editorial image about firefighters in
general not as a news image unless it was part of a training essay.
I agree with Andrew/Dennis that with policies like this in effect to let the
photo production folks do any work on the image that way the photographers hands
are clean and he can keep his job.
In the old days at larger papers there was a darkroom staff and IF the
photographer did the printing he usually got it done in time so he could spend
more time on the street looking for shots and waiting for an assignment. If it
was shot in color it would have been muddy as the first and second prints then
the photo editor may have said can you clean it up and the printer would ask
how much.
Additionally editors are editors for a reason as they can tell a writer or the
photographer to put whatever slant/bias on a story or image they want, as it
fits the papers politics. Or the editor can put whatever sides the writer knows
of in the story. There is usually more than one side to a story - Mary's (from
Mary had a little lamb), the lamb's, or the missing sheepherder's side OR the
prisoner, the guard, the DA, or defense lawyer... wait there are witness also,
so that is at least 6 sides.
Anyway policy is policy and knowing what it is I as a photographer would have
left the image muddy with a just a touch, of color not as vivid as it is now.
That way I can still come to work tomorrow. Photographers aren't just
photographers they tell story with images and words to a writer and an editor,
specially if there is no reporter on scene.
As a youth there was an image I shot of a 7ft deep, 8ft around sink hole on a
one lane, one way Chicago city street. I placed a bicycle half over the edge for
the image i submitted. The editor said I shouldn't have but ran it anyway
because it was a night shot and showed the great potential danger. The caption
in part said "no one was hurt" as I nor any car fell in. BTW this was a summer
night as I was riding my bicycle home so I went home called the authorities, got
a camera and flash, rode back and shot the image. A busy night for a 15 year
old.
SapereAude,
Arye P. Rubenstein
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Andy Blankertz
Date: December 29, 2011 9:22:43 AM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Ethical Retouching--another case
Andrew Webb wrote:
What you are describing is Editorial not News. The least amount of >interpretation is best for News; that is why I suggested jpegs be >shot, and then printed as shot, with adjustments only in the CMYK to >ensure decent repro.
[clip]
Newspapers used to have a lab, and the lab just made the selected >frames printable for the paper. Why should that change now?
Using a jpeg _is_ a conscious decision to use an interpretation, namely the camera manufacturer's. The camera manufacturer has decided how to set contrast and color. The only uninterpreted image is scene-referred; do you really think that is what should be printed?
And I don't think that you can say that newspaper labs "just made the selected frames printable for the paper"- they did have to choose which contrast grade of paper to print on.
Andy Blankertz
___________________________________________________________________________
III. A Case from North Korea
From: Kevin Stecyk
Date: December 29, 2011 8:22:58 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Retouching - From North Korea, an Altered Procession
Here's another example of retouching:
- From North Korea, an Altered Procession
- http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/from-north-korea-an-altered-procession/
Regards,
Kevin Stecyk
This photo was of the funeral procession for Kim Jong-Il. The parade route was lined with orderly mourners, but a group of people a few feet further away from the curb was deleted from the image, possibly because it was thought to be disrespectful for them not to be with the rest of the mourners.
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Boris Feldblyum
Date: December 29, 2011 11:11:11 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Retouching - From North Korea, an Altered Procession
There is an amazing book about falsification-I mean advance retouching-of
Soviet made photographs. Still can be seen on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Commissar-Vanishes-Falsification-Photographs-Stalins/dp/0805052941
What the N.Koreans did not clean are the figures of the secret policemen
standing at intervals, facing the crowd. There are few of them behind the
crowd as well.
Happy New Year!
Boris Feldblyum
www.bfcollection.net
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Davis
Date: December 30, 2011 6:24:48 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Retouching - From North Korea, an Altered Procession
This illustrates that there are "enhanced" photos and there are
"altered" photos. Some photos are products of both, and at various
degrees fiction grows to greater heights.
At some point documenting the original or raw file might become SOP.
Henry
___________________________________________________________________________
IV. A Political Correction, Politically Incorrect?
From: Dan Margulis
Date: December 30, 2011 10:17:03 AM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Political picture--ethical retouch?
A list member for whom it would be awkward to make the post publicly asked me a specific question about a news photo that appeared in the last couple of days, as to whether a certain (hypothetical) move would be acceptable. Let me explain the photo, with some reference to the U.S. political system, for the benefit of our international members.
There is about to be held (3 January) the first actual test of how voters in the Republican party feel about who should be the candidate to oppose President Obama in the November 2012 election. There are currently seven candidates actively vying for this honor.
The election, or better phrased, the caucuses, are taking place in the state of Iowa, which is more right-wing than the rest of the country, and involves only a small number of prospective participants, who presumably are more interested in politics than the rest of the state is. I cannot believe that in any other country much attention would be paid to such a carnival, but our media being what it is, it dominates the news, and the candidates are spending a large amount of money trying to drum up support. And, naturally, granted the environment, each candidate is attempting to be more right-wing than the others, with the result that the coverage is of the most right-wing candidates of all.
One of these ultra-rightist candidates is named Michele Bachmann. Unexpectedly, two days ago the co-chairman of her Iowa campaign quit and announced he was supporting a different ultra-rightist candidate. Granted the enormous coverage of the entire campaign, this switch is considered big news and requires stories and pictures about this guy who has suddenly shifted positions.
As you might imagine, being co-chairman of a campaign for a preliminary event in Iowa does not necessarily indicate that a person is prominent or that there are a lot of pictures of him available. Nevertheless, the newspaper has one that would be excellent to illustrate the story, except for one detail.
The guy is standing alone, wearing a business suit, in front of a large blue bus with a prominent "Michele Bachmann for President" emblazoned on it. So far, exactly the picture we want, except for one little thing. The strong sun is almost directly overhead and the guy's face is in deep shadow.
The list member would like our opinion on whether it is acceptable to fix this so that the face becomes much lighter in relation to the rest of the picture. One has to remember, though, that in the context of the story the blue bus behind him is extremely important.
The newspaper ran the photo with the face in deep shadows. I downloaded a thumbnail version and offer a for-the-sake-of-argument correction, which I did in about a minute with a false profile, then multipliying through a blurred layer mask based on the blue channel, thus allowing the bus to get darker than the face.
I have uploaded the two in before-and-after to the Miscellaneous folder of our files section. The file should be accessible directly at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/colortheory/photos/album/410631218/pic/1710293773/view?picmode=&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc
and if that fails you can get into the folder with
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/colortheory/photos/album/410631218/pic/list
The original is too dark overall and I can't believe there would be any objection to a slight uniform lightening. But if you'd like to continue the discussion of what is acceptable and what is not, here would be the questionable areas:
1) Is it OK to use a mask so that the face becomes much lighter in relation to the bus?
2) Is it OK to use MMM to enhance color variation, so that the sky becomes more cyan, making the blue bus more prominent?
Indeed, this is a slippery slope that we have started down.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Bevi Chagnon
Date: December 30, 2011 10:46:31 AM EST
Subject: RE: [colortheory] Political picture--ethical retouch?
Being a digital media artist in Washington, DC, I'm compelled to add my 2
cents' worth.
1) Is it OK to use a mask so that the face becomes much lighter in
relation to the bus?
Only if the adjustment makes the person's race/ethnicity appear more
accurate in the photo. Cameras do not always record the scene accurately as
the original demonstrates. In the original, the shadow makes it difficult to
tell if he is Hispanic, Caribbean, European Caucasian, or even African
American. Race and ethnicity carry critical undertones in American politics.
Dan's correction is OK.
2) Is it OK to use MMM to enhance color variation, so that the sky
becomes more cyan, making the blue bus more prominent?
Only to the point that it looks natural and realistic in relation to
everything else in the photo. Dan's correction goes too far in the sky and
bus areas. It looks Photoshopped.
--Bevi Chagnon
(who also can't understand how Iowa and New Hampshire became bellwethers
for our candidate primary system.)
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Bean
Date: December 30, 2011 10:58:36 AM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Political picture--ethical retouch?
The newspaper ran the photo with the face in deep shadows
I did not review the image...
if we are staying on the tack of Ôoriginal scene'.. would it not be fact that when you viewed the situation your eye compensated for the extreme contrast and you were able to Ôsee' the face... if yes, I cannot imagine a valid reason for not at least opening the face and additionally compensating for the newsprint.. its a picture of a person and a sign- nothing more.
regards, jim bean
___________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Lawrence"
Date: December 30, 2011 11:14:36 AM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
Dan,
One of the most important things I have learned from you is that carbon based life forms have a remarkable trait you call *simultaneous contrast* and you always propose trying to edit in a way that reproduces what the photographer would have seen.
1) Is it OK to use a mask so that the face becomes much lighter in relation to the bus?
A resounding YES...
2) Is it OK to use MMM to enhance color variation, so that the sky becomes more cyan, making the blue bus more prominent?
In this context, that's probably hyperbole..
David Lawrence
www.PixelPurfect.com
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Davis
Date: December 30, 2011 5:49:07 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Political picture--ethical retouch?
Selective editing results in an enhanced image. My opinion is that
enhanced photos used for new stories need to be labeled as
"enhanced". Details about the enhancement can also be offered with
the photo.
Some people take the position that it's not possible to draw the line
as to what counts as enhanced. Some do this in order to support the
grander position that all is fair and anything goes. I don't support
either of these positions.
Henry
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Jacob Rus
Date: December 30, 2011 8:45:48 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Ethical Retouching--another case
Andrew Webb wrote:
What you are describing is Editorial not News. The least amount
of interpretation is best for News; that is why I suggested jpegs
be shot, and then printed as shot, with adjustments only in the
CMYK to ensure decent repro.
The part I disagree with you about here is the existence of a "least
possible interpretation". If the original scene was an image in a
newspaper then a copy might be made very close to the original. If by
contrast the original scene is a silhouette of a man against a roaring
fire, there is simply no possible way to reproduce the scene without
"interpretation"; what the photographer's eyes do is the original
scene is interpret, and the combination of camera human skill +
newspaper printing press + another set of eyes sitting before the
breakfast table makes an interpretation that is fundamentally
different than the first one. Shooting JPEG out of the camera and only
doing minimal and generic color correction in CMYK doesn't get you a
"less interpreted" picture; it just gets you a shitty one.
Newspapers used to have a lab, and the lab just made the selected
frames printable for the paper. Why should that change now?
They did the best prints they could, subject to technology, deadline,
and budget constraints. That shouldn't change now.
that's like saying that we shouldn't calibrate our equipment to a
known standard because nobody will ever look at our output in a
light booth.
When doing a physics experiment (or, say, recording a historical
painting) it's useful to use carefully calibrated devices end to end
because we can then compare our results, make meaningful models of the
world, and make precise counts. But the best calibrated camera we know
how to build works differently than the human visual system, and
making a print or image on screen that conveys the same visual impact
and emotional message takes either a skilled artist-technician or a
whole lot of luck.
Cheers,
Jacob Rus
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Russ Brown
Date: December 30, 2011 9:56:32 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
I've been a press photographer for going on 30 years and at my work, the photographers do all their own editing in Photoshop (as it should be - we always did our own darkroom work in the days of film!)
Our SOP is to correct technical deficiencies in our images, meaning we fix colour and density where appropriate. Dodging and burning for aesthetic and technical purposes was always done in darkroom days and is also fine now. We may not alter the image by removing, adding or moving elements around or changing colour further than accurate correction of casts. (This means we cannot for example, mask a sky and make it bluer for purely aesthetic effect. Strangely, no-one complains about using a Polarising filter to achieve this but that's another story!)
Therefore, we routinely mask and alter the density and colour casts of faces or other important elements of our images, so I see no problem at all in masking and lightening the man in this image, leaving the bus fine as it is. There would also for that matter, be no issue with warming his skin tone if, being in shade, his skin tone is colder than the background, which is in full sunlight. This comes under the "how you would have seen it had you been there" heading. A person standing in the position of the camera would not have seen the man as being dark or a colder colour temperature than the background because of the way we perceive such things, so correcting these differences between the way the camera records the scene and a person sees it deceives no-one. On the contrary, it would be absurd to use technically poor images, merely to conform to some arbitrary idea that using anything other than the image as the camera produces it is somehow incorrect. This sort of rubbish is simply the ignorant members of the Lunatic Fringe loving the sound of their own voices.
Hope this helps!
Russ Brown
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Davis
Date: December 30, 2011 11:11:44 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
Aesthetic enhancement of a news photo? Technical enhancement of a
news photo? These aren't the same thing.
In the days of film, the original film record was still available for
reference. I hardly believe that altering the film in that day would
have gotten hasty approval. Perhaps push or pull processing, but not
altering the developed film.
Henry
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Andrew Webb
Date: December 30, 2011 11:31:28 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Political picture--ethical retouch?
Until now, I thought we were having a reasonable and civil discussion.
Who suggested using technically poor images? Arenât you supposed to be able to get the exposure correct in the first place if you are billing yourself as a professional?
/webb
On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:56 PM, russjb arranged some pixels so they looked like this:
On the contrary, it would be absurd to use technically poor images, merely to conform to some arbitrary idea that using anything other than the image as the camera produces it is somehow incorrect. This sort of rubbish is simply the ignorant members of the Lunatic Fringe loving the sound of their own voices.
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Andrew Webb
Date: December 30, 2011 11:58:43 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Ethical Retouching--another case
On Dec 29, 2011, at 7:22 AM, ablankertz arranged some pixels so they looked like this:
Using a jpeg _is_ a conscious decision to use an interpretation, namely the camera manufacturer's. The camera manufacturer has decided how to set contrast and color. The only uninterpreted image is scene-referred; do you really think that is what should be printed?
ãLeast amount of interpretation *possible*, given the constraints under which the work is performed and those of the equipment. I thought that was clear.
And I don't think that you can say that newspaper labs "just made the selected frames printable for the paper"- they did have to choose which contrast grade of paper to print on.
Yeah, obviously. But they didn't jack the contrast up on purpose to make people look spooky or aged beyond reality, right?
Nit-picking barely relevant details doesn't really further the discussion.
/webb
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Russ Brown
Date: December 31, 2011 12:59:35 AM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
Did I *say* that aesthetic and technical were the same thing?
Just because a photo is for a newspaper, doesn't mean it has to be dull. All newspaper pictures aren't "hard news". Many of the images I take are ordinary people doing ordinary (or interesting) things, school kiddies, artists, musicians, sporting events, fashion, etc. Are you suggesting that every one should be strictly literal and show no aesthetic element? Each week, our boss sends out an email with his picks of the best and most striking images of the week. Few of these are "news" pictures. We are encouraged to make ordinary assignments interesting and eye-catching. Much is done in-camera of course but some skilful dodging and burning, for example can make a big difference. I think all photographers choose their profession because they have some level of artistic inclination. My feeling of job satisfaction would be severely reduced if I was unable to work my images and make them look as good as possible within the legitimate constraints of news media. This is why I'm very happy that we still edit our own work.
Today, the original image file is still available for reference. The software we use to load our images from the camera only allows us to duplicate the selected image and make adjustments to that, so the original photo remains as shot, alongside the worked image. Similarly, original negatives were of course never altered in the past but printed images were legitimately dodged and burned to enhance both their technical and aesthetic qualities.
I wouldn't want to live in a world where the Political Correctness Police hit everything with the Beige Gun. The point of the rules governing how images may be worked in newspapers is to ensure that the presentation of news is factual and not misleading. Having an aesthetically pleasing image does nothing to threaten this necessity.
FWIW, I'm horrified that the photographer mentioned previously was fired for the Fire-fighter image. Regardless of the arguments one way or the other, unless he was making a habit of deliberately creating misleading images, he could have at least been "counselled" and allowed to make one error without simply being fired over one very debatable transgression.
Russ Brown
__________________________________________________________________________
From: Andrew Webb
Date: December 30, 2011 11:49:53 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Ethical Retouching--another case
On Dec 30, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Jacob Rus arranged some pixels so they looked like this:
The part I disagree with you about here is the existence of a "least
possible interpretation". If the original scene was an image in a
newspaper then a copy might be made very close to the original. If by
contrast the original scene is a silhouette of a man against a roaring
fire, there is simply no possible way to reproduce the scene without
"interpretation"; what the photographer's eyes do is the original
scene is interpret, and the combination of camera human skill +
newspaper printing press + another set of eyes sitting before the
breakfast table makes an interpretation that is fundamentally
different than the first one. Shooting JPEG out of the camera and only
doing minimal and generic color correction in CMYK doesn't get you a
"less interpreted" picture; it just gets you a shitty one.
I don't understand how you can argue that controlling the whole process as much as possible is wrong. We calibrate our equipment as well as we can in order to produce colors for say, a clothing catalog, as repeatably as possible whether the clothes were shot in a studio or on location. it sounds as if you are advocating complete freedom in post-production to do whatever mood-altering, impression-enhancing desired. That is why I said that it sounded like Editorial photography, not News. The OJ Newsweek debacle is a good example of the difference and the dangers.
Newspapers used to have a lab, and the lab just made the selected
frames printable for the paper. Why should that change now?
They did the best prints they could, subject to technology, deadline,
and budget constraints. That shouldn't change now.
The best *straight* prints... Not the same as *best* prints... They weren't actively manipulating...
that's like saying that we shouldn't calibrate our equipment to a
known standard because nobody will ever look at our output in a
light booth.
When doing a physics experiment (or, say, recording a historical
painting) it's useful to use carefully calibrated devices end to end
because we can then compare our results, make meaningful models of the
world, and make precise counts. But the best calibrated camera we know
how to build works differently than the human visual system, and
making a print or image on screen that conveys the same visual impact
and emotional message takes either a skilled artist-technician or a
whole lot of luck.
See my response to para #1.
/webb
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Davis
Date: December 31, 2011 12:52:12 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
Russ Brown wrote,
Did I *say* that aesthetic and technical were the same thing?
You mentioned them in the same breath:
"Dodging and burning for aesthetic and technical purposes was always
done in darkroom days and is also fine now."
Sorry if I misunderstood. I took it to mean "both are fine".
It's understandable that the responsible party for a news outlet would
insure having the original file to check against the prepared image -
and do this before publishing. This SOP is not for the sake of
political correctness. Photos that aren't related to hard new stories
might have more leeway according to the publisher's oversight, but
it's not just the photographer's whim alone. Technology has changed
this part of the business.
Cutting up pieces of film or prints back in the day was also
possible. The act is much the same today, only faster and less
detectable. Today, the original file is not always available.
The original exposure is the best one can hope for with regard to
documentation. Context alone (of a scene) has an impact on the story
spin of an image. Further alteration brings the possibility of either
more spin or better factuality - depending on lots of factors that are
very rubber. This is where oversight (and an original exposure) is
crucial.
Bringing art into photojournalism may be a personal ambition for the
photographer, but to me the facts are more important. Make all of the
art you want, enhance all you want, alter all you want. But, if your
job is to document hard news, the less of this the better.
Political correctness is a two-way street, and it's alive and well in
photojournalism. Has been for a long time. It will continue. New
tools have only made pictorial propaganda faster and less detectable.
The ethics of those involved will determine the course of matters far
greater than aesthetics.
Henry
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Duane Ruck
Date: December 31, 2011 10:08:16 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
Russ I would be inclined to believe that his firing had little or nothing to do with the image and it's editing though there is no real way of determining that without direct evidence. A much more likely scenario is that he simply outlived his welcome by stepping on the toes of someone or someones in a position to influence or directly cause his discharge. The image was merely the,not very believable, means to a political(as in office politics)end.Some slight evidence toward that conclusion could come from the fact that the word Ôeditor' implies someone at a paper judging and approving content before publication.If so,no one other than the photographer was fired it seems and should have been under the paper's version of their reasoning.That doesn't prove ,of course, that it wasn't a senile cows situation as Dan proposed.
That would mean that there isn't, in that particular instance, much use for the image in trying to come up with guide lines as to fine lines along a slippery slope in retouching. JMHO
Regards,
Duane Ruck
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Russ Brown
Date: December 31, 2011 11:29:52 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
Thanks, Duane. I think you're correct. The more I've thought about it over the last few days, the more I come to the same conclusion.
Russ Brown
___________________________________________________________________________
From: John Denniston
Date: December 31, 2011 11:15:00 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Political picture--ethical retouch?
I've been retired for almost 10 years years as a newspaper photographer
then photo editor but I don't think much has changed during that time
with regard to what is acceptable in colour correction.
Using a mask or a correction technique like the picture postcard
workflow was and probably still is frowned upon but setting up $10,000
worth of strobe lights to fill the shadows is OK. This is of course
absurd but generally speaking editors felt that anything happening in
front of the camera was acceptable creativity and anything that happened
in the darkroom or in the computer was manipulation and unacceptable.
This bias was and is by no means universal. It is strongest in the US
with Canada following close behind. My belief is that the editors who
disapproved of enhancing photographs did so because it allowed them to
make decisions without taking responsibility for the content of a
picture. It relieved them of the task of thinking.
During my 30 years as a photographer I had an editor who wouldn't allow
me to dodge and burn in the darkroom and an editor who didn't run a
photograph because it WASN'T set up. Both big city dailies.
I will also say that this topic often came up on the NPPA listserv and
the comments were as vitriolic as the discussions here in the days of
Andrew Rodney and the calibrationists.
Regards, John
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Filip Zamorsky
Date: January 1, 2012 5:56:24 AM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Political picture--ethical retouch?
An interesting discussion regarding this topic can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/6m4bbjf
APhotoEditor could be considered as one of the most important blogs for
photographers on the web.
I decided to join this discussion as I think if we - I mean photographers &
retouchers - will stay quiet, then there could be more pressure on us in
the future. English is not my first language and I don't know how to write
"smoothly" but I am working on it.
Kind Regards,
Filip Zamorsky
http://shotworldwide.com
___________________________________________________________________________
From: David Lawrence
Date: January 1, 2012 7:28:05 AM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
There is a lot of reference to film in this topic. Retouching has moved on and digital processing is the way.
Consumers expect good images and are put off by anything less. A growing percentage of them even run plug-ins on the pics they shoot with their phones.
Referencing what could or couldn't be done in the film days as a way to justify ethical behavior seems arcane. Yes, ethical standards are important, but trying to put the cork back in the bottle now seems a bit foolish.
We all know right from wrong and this topic is more about intent than process.
David Lawrence
www.pixelpurfect.com
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Duane Ruck
Date: January 1, 2012 2:50:34 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
We all know right from wrong and this topic is more about intent than process.
Bingo!
Regards,
Duane Ruck
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Davis
Date: January 1, 2012 3:20:06 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
We all know right from wrong
It appears to me that this thread demonstrates nothing of the sort.
Henry
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Eric Basir
Date: January 2, 2012 10:31:35 AM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
I wanted to add that THIS is a great discussion. Although it's not technical, it is all about what we do in the retouching industry. I hope it continues and remains civil.
Eric Basir
Photo Grafix
http://www.PhotoGrafix.pro
___________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kurt Shoens"
Date: January 2, 2012 7:18:00 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
Andrew Webb wrote:
Who suggested using technically poor images? Aren't you supposed to be able to get the exposure correct in the first place if you are billing yourself as a professional?
That brings up an interesting question. In the picture you can see a piece of lighting equipment on the right side and the shadow of the lighting umbrella on the pavement to the left.
It appears that the photographer set up a portrait with the subject in shade, intending to put flattering light on him balanced with the ambient light on the campaign bus. And then the flash didn't fire.
Would it be an acceptable photo straight-out-of-camera if the flash fired?
I assume the photographer intended to shoot from a lower angle to take the umbrella shadow out of the picture. That and the flash mis-fire give me pause.
Kurt Shoens
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Margulis
Date: January 2, 2012 7:33:31 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
The pose suggests that he is facing a photographer who is taking his portrait--but it isn't the same photographer who took this shot, who probably works for the newspaper, and is shooting from a different angle. If there is a second photographer several feet in front of the subject, the umbrella, bus, and lighting equipment would not appear in his shot.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Davis
Date: January 2, 2012 7:53:32 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
It is what it is, or it was what it was - that's what's assumed.
That's why altering a photograph is called "altering".
Henry
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Margulis
Date: January 2, 2012 8:01:35 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
Henry,
It is what it is, but what if it isn't what it's supposed to be? Kurt's point may not apply to this actual image, but it's very valid nonetheless. Suppose the photographer intended to shoot this with flash, but due to a mechanical problem the flash did not fire. *Now* who altered the scene? If two photographers shoot the same scene and one uses flash and the other not, which one altered the scene, or are there two realities? Should we blame the retoucher who restores what the photographer wanted? Should we blame the photographer for wanting to alter the scene with flash in the first place? Or should we blame the camera, for not doing what the photographer wanted it to do?
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kurt Shoens"
Date: January 2, 2012 10:08:36 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
I've got a new theory of how this picture happened. I'll bet it was shot by a professional setting up a portrait of the candidate. He asked the campaign manager to step in for a lighting test and while the photographer was setting ambient exposure or fooling with his equipment the campaign manager got called away. Time passes. Then the news hits that the campaign manager quit and the call goes out for pictures of him. Maybe this is the best one the photographer has so he offers it up.
The above comes only from my vivid imagination, but if the scenario is anything like that, what's wrong with salvaging a usable portrait of the guy from what's available? The corrected version is closer to the truth than the original.
Kurt Shoens
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Bean
Date: January 2, 2012 10:34:55 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
Dan wrote,
Should we blame the photographer for wanting to alter the scene with flash in the first place? Or should we blame the camera, for not doing what the photographer wanted it to do?
you guys are creating so many variables it is impossible to answer these questions.... intent? blame? what it is, what if it isn't what it's supposed to be?
during dan's class I remember an outdoor scene of a cow? perhaps a small wooden bridge, a distant mountain range... dan was polishing up his postcard skillset...after working over the image a nice sunset/sky color appeared seemingly from nowhere in the final (exceptionally nice technique in my opinion).. jokingly I would Ôblame' dan for that sunset... was it part of the original scene... I don't know.
we have surveillance cameras that are nothing more than blind photographers making images--with and without flash and with IR....
I worked on a similar Ôthe flash didn't go off' where a lady was brutally battered by her husband... the original image was an effort by the lady to photographer herself without any light source or experience with cameras... the original was a hopeless, non-image, black silhouette... when opened and Ôenhanced?' .. I was shocked by the image content.. intent most surely is important, however without image enhancement/manipulation?/developement/processing, I think the best we can do is use our judgement and common sense to make these subjective? decisions...
regarding "altering the scene with flash in the first place"; the newsphotographer is making a reasonable effort to create a Ôprintable' image for his publication.
jim bean
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Davis
Date: January 3, 2012 1:10:20 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
My concern is for the ethics of hard news photojournalism. However,
even a staged portrait conceived and made by a journalist is of some
concern. Some instances of this have arisen during recent election
cycles where the intent is to present an unflattering image. How
convenient it becomes when the flash doesn't fire.
A flash might not go off on purpose or one might not be used at all,
thus giving the subject an undesirable appearance (as would a blown
out exposure). But altering such a photo might give the subject an
even more undesirable appearance, especially if shadows and other
tones are altered independent of each other. Improvements as well as
hideous things can both happen - and the intentions of the
photographer don't necessarily validate such license.
What a scene is "supposed" to be is an unnecessary game that opens the
door for all sorts of shenanigans. A good quality original exposure
is the number one necessity if photojournalism is to maintain
standards. Credibility is at stake, along with the responsibility of
accurately informing the public. The photographer should want a
quality exposure that accurately reflects the scene, even a staged
studio portrait. It seems to me that a photojournalist that relies on
retouching is one who either has a weak camera skill set or one who is
more concerned with his artistic ambitions. Maybe his personal
opinion regarding a story is his concern.
As an aside, it's curious to me that courtroom artists are still
employed (it's one of the job opportunities for graduating art
students). Might as well offer english-to-english interpreters, but
that job's already taken by journalists ;-)
When a flash is intended and doesn't fire, it may be a mechanical
failure, not the fault of someone. That can be addressed in a studio
setting with another shot that has the flash. Equipment might fail
but equipment failure doesn't give license. Assigning "blame" to a
camera is a stretch compared to calling it "equipment failure". User
error is a different thing. "Judgment" is clearly another thing
altogether - as is "ethics". If the equipment fails and the photo is
absolutely required, then adjust it (with oversight) and run it
labeled as altered (with explanation).
An altered photo can be clearly labeled as such. If this became the
habit for photojournalism there's reason to believe that the better
photographers would be getting the assignments. The infrequent
altered photo, if run with details as to the reason for altering,
might even gain credibility. The retoucher should also be named and
credited.
If anything goes, then credibility becomes a non-issue and we all
suffer the results.
Henry
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Duane Ruck
Date: January 3, 2012 5:14:12 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
Jim Bean wrote:
Should we blame the photographer for wanting to alter the scene with flash in the first place? Or should we blame the camera, for not doing what the photographer wanted it to do?
you guys are to creating so many variables it is impossible to answer these questions.... intent? blame? what it is, what if it isn't what it's supposed to be?
OK. Here is the truth of the matter.It is All of the above. No professional in the field of photography worthy of the name would deny that every photo,bar none,is a representation of reality only.That is truth, irrespective of type of camera be it film or digital,whether natural or artificial or a combination of lighting is used,pre or post processing, or a host of other manipulations such as camera and/or lighting angles and contrast ratios, depth of focus(field) and it's placement, focal length of camera lens and many other considerations.
All of these things can and indeed must be manipulated to even get a decent representation of the reality before the camera.Likewise All of these things can be manipulated to obtain a seriously biased distortion of that reality.Therein comes the matter of intent and it is all important in the current discussions on this thread.Intent plays it's role outside of the image's creation as well and goes directly to the selection process in the current example under discussion. For instance why it's being used at all ie: what is it's purpose or intent.That too can be a manipulation of reality as it indisputably is in all of advertising to one degree or another.
regarding "altering the scene with flash in the first place"; the newsphotographer is making a reasonable effort to create a Ôprintable' image for his publication.
We don't really know that but assuming it is so, the photographer apparently failed. That would make it necessary to do post processing to bring out the subject enough to make him identifiable in order to use it at all unless the publisher's intent is more to emphasize the background where that would be the main focus of work. There I go again to that word...intent.....
In regard to this specific image and the request for guidance on the part of the retoucher, my personal view would be that he comply with whatever his employer asks him to do unless he has reason to believe he would be accountable for some sort of wrong doing in the matter.
If that is the case he has a dilemma of a different sort entirely and truly needs no advise from any of us.
Regards,
Duane Ruck
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Davis
Date: January 3, 2012 5:56:38 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
Yes, it comes down to intent. If the original exposure exists for
reference the altered photo can be compared and evaluated. A decision
can then be made about using the photo or not. The act of labeling
the photo as "altered" becomes an honest admission. Honesty is an
intent we should expect from journalists, no?
Henry
___________________________________________________________________________
From: J Walton
Date: January 3, 2012 6:11:26 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Henry Davis wrote:
Yes, it comes down to intent. If the original exposure exists for
reference the altered photo can be compared and evaluated. A decision
can then be made about using the photo or not. The act of labeling
the photo as "altered" becomes an honest admission. Honesty is an
intent we should expect from journalists, no?
I think the (valid) point the OP was making is that every photo is
"altered". The exposure you choose, the use of external lighting,
depth of field, choice of lens, composition... all of that makes the
photo a little (or a lot) different than what you would have seen had
you been there. So what is "altered?" That's the question.
This notion that whatever is recorded by the camera is somehow more
"honest" is just silly to me. Every RAW file needs to be interpreted
in some way. Every JPEG from the camera has been interpreted by the
manufacturer. Every piece of film required that decisions be made as
to how it should be printed.
The act of labeling a photo as "altered" implies that the other photos
you did not label were not changed in any way, and that is dishonest.
J Walton
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Davis
Date: January 3, 2012 6:25:26 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
That's an interesting point. Without a human photographer there's
little context that can be added about a scene or an event. His extra
information might add important clarification and accuracy to the
interpretation of the photo or it might distort the context.
Credibility is a very different consideration for these two sources.
Can we ascribe credibility (or a lack of it) to the robot camera?
Traffic light cameras offer enough credibility for the courts. Or do
they only offer justification for court action.
I believe that professional photojournalists will become even more
important to us all as robot photographers increase - but only if they
maintain credibility. The same applies as more and more amateurs
submit photos to news outlets. Selective video editing and photo
manipulation is making it more difficult to sort out news stories.
Amateur sources (and robots) allow lots of room for interpretation and
distortion. Professional input that's credible has always been
important but have you noticed the increase in the use of other sources?
Henry
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Davis
Date: January 3, 2012 7:03:43 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
all of that makes the
photo a little (or a lot) different than what you would have seen had
you been there. So what is "altered?" That's the question.
A little or a lot. Insignificantly "altered" or otherwise. The
general public understands the word "photoshopped".
Contriving a scene as it's happening in order to misrepresent the
action is more difficult, and this has been frowned upon when it has
been found out.
It may seem silly to you that some say that what the camera records is
more honest. It's not silly to me. Manufacturers don't intend their
software to misrepresent a scene. Film developers didn't aim their
emulsions at misrepresenting the scene.
A little or a lot. There's both going on. I believe that less is
better.
Henry
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Jacob Rus
Date: January 4, 2012 12:51:31 AM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
Henry Davis wrote:
Contriving a scene as it's happening in order to misrepresent the
action is more difficult, and this has been frowned upon when it has
been found out.
I'd argue it's pretty easy. And news photographers have been doing it
since the beginnings of news photography in the 1860s. What matters
here is professionalism and discretion; blanket bans on photo printing
techniques like dodging/burning accomplishes pretty much nothing.
It may seem silly to you that some say that what the camera records is
more honest. It's not silly to me. Manufacturers don't intend their
software to misrepresent a scene. Film developers didn't aim their
emulsions at misrepresenting the scene.
Are you kidding? Manufacturers absolutely want their output to
"misrepresent" a scene if the result is more pleasing (leads to
improved sales!). This was a main feature (the main feature?) in all
the fighting between Kodak/Fuji/Agfa/&c. for decades, and it's why
consumer digicams have all those silly picture taking modes, and
gimmicks like red-eye reduction or the ridiculous "slimming" feature I
remember reading about 4 or 5 years ago (distort the image, and your
mother will lose 50 pounds!), and so forth.
Cheers,
Jacob Rus
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Davis
Date: January 4, 2012 12:03:51 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
In many situations contriving the action of a scene is more difficult
than not contriving, and the difficulties exist on several levels.
Yes, photojournalists do it. That it's done intentionally is the
issue. Situations where contriving is "pretty easy" ought to call for
even greater care - as one might accidentally misrepresent.
Nowhere have I suggested a "blanket ban" on dodging/burning. I don't
recall anyone else making that suggestion.
Am I kidding? No. My posts on this thread have been sincere.
A photojournalist chooses his equipment. If he intentionally chooses
equipment that distorts the scene then questions of motives and intent
must arise. Manufacturers engineer and offer options for equipment
and camera settings that intentionally distort or misrepresent less
than others.
The goal of photojournalism ought to be accuracy and honesty - not
gimmicks, distortion and misrepresentation - or personal fame. Those
relating news to the public are in a serious occupation. It's
disturbing that some are so ethically challenged or weak that they
allow their peers to dabble in acts that compromise credibility.
Recent examples ought to jar photojournalists to be more demanding
among themselves. Parts of this thread suggests an attitude of
"everybody does it, it's no big deal". Playing with it as if it were
a game is unprofessional - it's also dangerous. I'm not kidding.
Henry
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Steve Jenkins
Date: January 4, 2012 7:07:11 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
Hi all,
I've tried to stay out of this discussion but these last statements by Henry Davis are a bit over the top. Well at least to me. I wonder and need to ask, actually I'll address it to everyone following this thread: Isn't the purpose of Dan's list ultimately about how to manipulate/change images? I posit none of us would be here if we didn't feel there is more potential in most captured images then the RAW film/file, no matter what flavor of image/file the camera spits out. So if indeed anyone feels as strongly as Henry Davis appears to, why are they subscribed to this list? I guess I'm really confused by all the back-and-forth. Exactly how does it apply to making "silk purses out of sows ears"? Or, in case you didn't understand the last metaphor, making images so-much-more then just ho-hum. Oh, and ultimately of course it's all about the audience. Everyone likes to present their best effort, don't they?
To paraphrase earlier posts on this thread: We all have biases in the way we do things. Maybe we can agree that basically we're social animals (yeah, I know there are sociopaths, but that's a different discussion) and that being true, that no self-expression exists without an audience. So, given the construct of a society, and all the different motivations for self-expression, and not knowing *all* the myriad facts that conspired to create a specific image, who's the judge? You? Me? No way! I'm willing to critique, but to condemn? I'll leave that for someone who's a lot more sure of them self.
Again, succinctly: This list is about manipulating images!
Thanks for your time and cheers to all in the new year.
Steve
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Russ Brown
Date: January 5, 2012 2:42:06 AM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
Thanks, Steve.
I decided not to bother any more, quite awhile back. I've got better things to do with my time.
Too much sanctimonious bleating, which is a shame, but luckily the genuine professionals here know the reality of the situation and probably also thought better of wasting time arguing the point.
Onward to the next topic, I think....!
Russ Brown
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Richmond J Dougall
Date: January 4, 2012 8:44:08 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
Photojournalism is not the same as fine art or graphic design - or so
many other specialties with which we may be associated. Advertising
photography has its own set of ethics - but I do not think fine art
photography, family pictures - or so many other fields involving
photography suffer the same limits and restraints. I think Steve's point
is well taken and I think this thread has run its course. I do not
recall anyone commenting on remarks I made early in this thread - an
image submitted to a given medium must conform technically to the
reproduction requirements of that medium. I gave as an example the need
of my editor in the early 1940's who used my images in an evening
newspaper in Kingston, Jamaica. Half-tone plates were not the most
faithful means of reproducing grayscale and black and white prints
submitted for that process would not have made nice prints to exhibit in
a photo album or hang on the wall - and likewise, images printed for
copying on to half-tone plates that looked great in frame might look
like a piece of mud on the front page of the newspaper.
There is a huge difference between printing an image so it will
reproduce properly and altering it with composites and other tricks of
the trade.
Dick Dougall
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Margulis
Date: January 5, 2012 7:27:41 AM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
On Jan 4, 2012, at 7:07 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
I've tried to stay out of this discussion but these last statements by Henry Davis are a bit over the top. Well at least to me. I wonder and need to ask, actually I'll address it to everyone following this thread: Isn't the purpose of Dan's list ultimately about how to manipulate/change images?
I would just add that I have found the thread valuable because it reminds us of how complex the subject is, how little it is subject to pat answers. Anybody who supplies photos to and interacts with clients knows that they can have wild and crazy opinions of what's going on in the picture. This is just more of the same, except for "client" read "editor".
It sounds so easy to set up rules for newspapers--until you reason that if you send five photographers, with five different makes of camera, to photograph exactly the same thing you'll come up with five considerably different originals. If you send five *reporters* with the same model of camera, the variation will be even more because they won't know how to set the camera up and will be using the same settings that the last person did. If you take one original and open it in five different raw modules you'll get five different results. Give any one of them to five different retouchers and again, five different results.
Which is right? Which is honest? What sage who wasn't present at the original scene, will determine this? And if we disagree with his judgment, will we be condemned as unethical, or fired?
Anyway, in response to a couple of queries: the photographer who was fired for "falsifying" his deliberately underexposed original had had previous problems with management along the same lines, so the firing did not come out of the clear blue--er, brownish gray--sky.
Also, newspaper production, since color became common about 15 years ago, has been subject to turf wars. Should the photographers be responsible for correcting their own work before handing it in, or is this a prepress function? In an industry suffering through massive layoffs, one can understand that there are differences of opinion on this point.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Davis
Date: January 5, 2012 10:31:12 AM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
I've tried to stay out of this discussion but these last statements
by Henry Davis are a bit over the top.
I don't believe I've been excessive, but I'll take your criticism into
consideration. Maybe some clarification will help.
Isn't the purpose of Dan's list ultimately about how to manipulate/
change images?
There is a "how" but there's also a "when". I've been a fan of Dan's
for many years, from a time before this list was created. Before
there were exotic techniques, he was a lone voice for advice on
preparing images for presswork - there simply was no one else with his
qualifications that gave a dang about helping others out of the
woods. The tools evolved and such work became both more powerful and
more commonplace. More people entered "green" into a process that
they had not experienced. I remember not being given a high-powered
rifle or shotgun until I had proven my responsibility with a BB gun.
Photoshop is a powerful tool.
The question of "when" image manipulation is appropriate is, to me,
inseparable from the "how". It has also become a news topic that pops
up more frequently and so I believe that it deserves some attention -
especially from those who manipulate images. This forum is a
concentration of such folk. There are some using the tools who have
never asked themselves the "ought" questions, and others that debate
them internally and with others.
So if indeed anyone feels as strongly as Henry Davis appears to, why
are they subscribed to this list?
The above response applies here but I'll add that strong feelings
about the ethics of photojournalism are essential to that profession.
Go milquetoast here and see how things go. It's not a risk I would
take.
Perhaps you've missed the posts I've made on other topics, topics that
might be closer to your interests.
I guess I'm really confused by all the back-and-forth.
Maybe the sidetrack that veered into the question of "when is it
appropriate" was a distraction. There was some overlapping of
situations that was somewhat confusing. I tried to be careful and
clear about the distinction between journalism and other cases. I
don't know how I could have been more clear, but I'm still learning ;-)
Oh, and ultimately of course it's all about the audience.
The audience for news is "geared for" and expecting news. Journalism
should be more concerned with delivering accurate content than the
reaction of its audience.
. . . no self-expression exists without an audience
In journalism, the "self" should be kept in its place.
So, given the construct of a society, and all the different
motivations for self-expression, and not knowing *all* the myriad
facts that conspired to create a specific image, who's the judge?
You? Me? No way!
News photos MUST be judged. Critique is secondary, especially if you
mean it as artistic evaluation. It's a dodge of responsibility to not
judge news photos. Who should judge, who can judge? We all should
participate in this. It's essential for the sake of society (as well
as the profession). Photojournalists, editors and publishers are in
the front trenches for judgement. We seen some of that judgement slip
lately, or did they get caught?
Again, succinctly: This list is about manipulating images!
Yes, but this subject can take some sidetracks. To avoid them
altogether would be somewhat disingenuous. There might be a lot of
disinterest in dot gain too.
Henry
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Daniel Rubinstein
Date: January 5, 2012 1:42:39 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Political picture--ethical retouch?
Hi,
I usually stay out of the discussions as I don't have much to contribute in terms of post-production expertise, despite taking Dan's class some years ago and enjoying every minute of it.
But I do have something to say about the ethical question because I am surprised by the pedestrian linearity of some of the comments. Photographers interested in questions of ethics would do well to study not only colour theory but also the theory of representation. There is wast literature on the question of objectivity, subject-object relations and manipulation, so its not like one needs to re-invent the wheel when the objectivity of photographs is called into question. There is no need for Heisenberg's uncertainty theory; it is enough to recall that one of the most important understandings of modern science is that to observe a situation is to some extent to be changed by it. This applies equally to the photographer and to the subject. The photographer manipulates a situation simply by the fact of her presence at the scene, and of course the reverse is also true - the photographer is manipulated by the environment she finds herself in. This is not to say that photography cannot be objective, but it is to say that to observe a situation is to manipulate it. Photography is objective precisely to to the extent that it is manipulated. All meaningful photographs (from works by Robert Capa to Pedro Mayer - to pick two photojournalists almost at random) bear evidence to this simple truth. The question for a photographer is not whether to manipulate an image or not, but how to manipulate the situation in order to achieve photographer's intentions.
Regards,
Daniel Rubinstein
___________________________________________________________________________
V. The Fired Photographer's Judgment: Three Examples
From: Dan Margulis
Date: January 10, 2012 9:32:46 AM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] newspaper reproduction
For those still interested in the photojournalism ethics thread, some pointers sent to me offline by Roberto Tartaglione should be interesting.
We were discussing the case of the North Carolina photographer who was fired in 2005 for "falsifying" a picture of a firefighter against a sunset by underexposing the original to avoid losing the sun, and then correcting the image in Photoshop to change the sky to orange rather than brownish-gray as in the "original".
It was brought up and confirmed in the discussion that this photographer was noted for his pictures of fires, had won awards for same, and that he had had previous difficulties along the same line.
It turns out that he had been stripped of three of his awards in 2003 for similar "falsification" of fire images. The before-and-after shots are shown in an article defending the photographer, entitled
In Defense of Photographer Patrick Schneider
And the fictions of a "code of ethics"
at
http://zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/october.html
The first of the three would be the most controversial. The subject is two sad-looking firefighters consoling one another. In the original, the background was out of focus but there was a lot of action going on in it that the photographer decided distracted from the subject. So he selected the entire background and basically blacked it out.
The other two appear to me to be straight color corrections that give a more realistic color to the flames. Apparently there was some use of the dodge and burn tool but at first glance I didn't see where.
The author of the article accepts all three of these. I accept the last two but am of two minds about the first. I definitely oppose all instances of adding objects to pictures, but not necessarily deletions of irrelevant stuff. Then again, this is a rather large deletion. I would have had no problem had he just tried to reduce contrast in the background to try to eliminate the distraction.
Shortly after this episode where the awards were withdrawn, the North Carolina Press Photographer Association passed a new code of ethics, which states in part:
Photojournalists may not alter the editorial content of a photograph. No people or objects may be added, re-arranged, reversed, distorted or removed from a selected scene. Common practices in our profession that affect the scene to a much lesser degree are permitted. Dodging or burning to de-emphasize or emphasize areas, never adding or erasing information, is acceptable. Toning and color correcting that remains true to the tones and colors of the original scene are acceptable, as are cropping, contrast adjustment, sharpening and spotting. Cloning (i.e., the rubber stamp tool in Photoshop) may only be used to remove dust and scratches. Conversion from color to grayscale is permitted.
The good part of this is that it reduces some judgment. If this is the rule, then the first photo (background obliterated) is not acceptable. As I read it, though, the other two are acceptable--yet the photographer didn't get his awards back.
But the bad part is that the rest is subject to interpretation--and the photographer eventually lost his job for doing something that this code of ethics says is perfectly acceptable. He changed the sunset away from "brownish gray", which it could not possibly have been in the original scene, and substituted something more realistic. Unfortunately, his bosses decided that "original scene" means "the original as captured by the camera, no matter how stupid the settings."
And this is the problem with all this well-meaning philosophizing. I sympathize with what Henry Davis says but it is just not enforceable unless there are bright-line tests available. "Don't add any new objects" is a bright-line test. "Only do color corrections that are faithful to the original scene, and whether you have done this will be judged by strangers who may know nothing about photography or color correction, and if they decide against you, you will be fired," is not. In fact, it is a recipe for timorousness.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
From: John Pavel
Date: January 10, 2012 6:24:15 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: newspaper reproduction
In the end, it's a matter of maintaining the trust of readers, who are not interested in bravery but in being able to rely on what they see/read. A purely rules-based approach will not be sufficient to deliver that objective (because even objective-sounding rules will always to be subject to interpretation in the interesting cases, or because they may not deliver the objective of maintaining trust, just as the failure of the financial sector in 2007/8 was not the result of a breach of particular rules).
To take a couple of parallels: the head of the Swiss central bank who just resigned did not break any existing rules, but he did lose the trust of his peers and could not continue to function effectively. (The rules were also inadequate.)
A young prizewinning journalist at the UK Independent interviewed people and then instead of quoting them directly, took quotes from the writings of his interviewees where they had expressed the same ideas more clearly. (He also did other things.) He has been given a second chance, but his credibility, and that of his newspaper, was damaged. I doubt that you could point to a specific rule that he broke: arguably he was doing his readers a service by producing more lucid articles.
When I submit pictures for publication I would often like to be able remove cigarette butts from the street, and the like. To do so would not undermine the editorial integrity of the picture, but it could lead people to start to wonder "if he is prepared to do that, what else would he do?". I don't want that question to arise.
To finish with some real-world examples, here are the editorial submission requirements from IStockPhoto, which will have been lawyered, and which start with the precept:
"Your photo must tell the truth about its subject. You may not edit or manipulate it in any way that changes the context or subject matter. This includes cloning, copying and pasting, or cropping.
Does this mean that you must submit all images as-is, straight out of the camera? No. A certain amount of limited processing is acceptable as long as they do not change the image itself."
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=939
The BBC's guidelines are here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-stills-photographs-summary
Alamy requires submitters to declare whether a picture has been "digitally altered"
Application of all of these guidelines requires judgement; they are not objective tests. So "corrections that are faithful to the original scene, and whether you have done this will be judged by strangers who may know nothing about photography or color correction, and if they decide against you" there will be consequences, is where we seem to be,
Best, John Pavel
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Davis
Date: January 10, 2012 5:46:11 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] newspaper reproduction
If it were cut-and-dried it wouldn't be a philosophical issue. But
that's not to say that philosophical debate can't lead to progress.
It may never be ironed out completely but together photojournalists,
editors and publishers can arrive at a code that better serves
themselves and the public. Well-meaning approaches are of value at
times.
As I said in an earlier post, the ego of the photographer should not
take priority in journalism, neither should his opinions regarding a
story. Of course this is easier said than done but hey, easy isn't
the goal. News isn't about "easy". My insistence that the "original"
photo be submitted along with the altered is a good SOP I think. The
person answering to the publisher needs to know everything he can
about a scene before it's printed. Adding this to the code of ethics
seems to me to be a no-brainer. What need is there to hide or remove
or de-emphasized content in a news photo? Doing so only adds another layer of interpretation to an event.
Journalists need credibility with the public and a "take my word for
it" attitude doesn't do much for credibility. I realize that I've
been strict in my opinions about this and haven't made any friends. I
could make this perception worse by saying that even cropping needs to be supervised - take that! There are times when cropping is just a
euphemism for "content removal".
As I see it, there's very little (probably no) justification for
firing a photojournalist due to his sense of aesthetics. Yet
photographers seem to concentrate a lot sensitivity toward their
aesthetic. News isn't about aesthetics. Sure, some shots are more
appealing. Some photographers are better at getting it all together
without the need for altering. But their goal ought to be the most
accurate and unbiased photo they can achieve, even if it's lacking in
aesthetics.
To me, it would be out of line to fire a photographer who provides
less aesthetic, though unaltered photos. I believe that practice
would result in an even greater amount of photo-fiddling shenanigans.
"Timorousness" itself might then gain new heights - though in another
direction. Perhaps we're witnessing a bit of this presently.
Henry
___________________________________________________________________________
From: John Denniston
Date: January 10, 2012 11:38:44 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] newspaper reproduction
On 1/10/2012 2:46 PM, Henry Davis wrote:
I could make this perception worse by saying that even cropping needs to
be supervised - take that! There are times when cropping is just a
euphemism for "content removal".
Hi Henry,
So what focal length lens would you suggest the photographer use so he
doesn't crop the scene when taking the picture?
Regards, John
--
www.Johndenniston.ca
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Davis
Date: January 11, 2012 12:23:36 AM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] newspaper reproduction
Hi John,
I enjoy your inside baseball posts - it has a familiar ring to it. I
had to laugh at your mention of the endless parade of color
consultants. You were probably the best asset they had for that job -
but how many jobs can one do?
That's the feeling I have sometimes about photographers. They already
have a full-time job. Adding image prep only stretches things
further. Even though I understand the motivations, it does seem to be
taking on too much. Now if things weren't as tight and personnel
numbers were adequate then doing their own editing might be more
reasonable to add to their task load.
I couldn't tell you any more about focal length than I could about
Adam's house cat. A pro photographer picks a lens for the situation
he encounters, sets the exposure and frames it and as best he can. He
takes the shot. I don't need to know about lens stuff. I need to
know that his photography is credible. The more I doubt this, the
more I doubt the credibility of the publisher and everyone working
there. The whole operation suffers, as well as the public.
Pertinent content that gets cropped after the fact doesn't need to
happen - but it does for various reasons. That's my concern with
cropping. Content removal needs supervision and supervision needs the original exposure for comparison. Is that asking too much?
If a competitor published an uncropped version it would damage the
credibility of the source that cropped out the pertinent content - as
well as be a disservice to the public. I'd hate to be the guy that
approved that photo.
Henry
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Margulis
Date: January 11, 2012 9:34:30 AM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Newspaper reproduction
{Moderator insert} A list member who was having difficulty posting asked me to post the following on his behalf.
The link to the article he was speaking about showing the photographer's alteration is
http://zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/october.html
--DM{/Moderator insert}
From: "Ralph Adam Fine"
Date: January 11, 2012 9:01:48 AM EST
Subject: Newspaper retouching
Dan's post of the article defending Patrick Schneider (the fire photographer) crystallizes the issue as I see it. Unlike photographic art, which like brush and pigment art, photo journalism should accurately reflect the captured image as it was. I assume that no one will disagree--but, if you do, please let me know and if the moderators permit we can discuss.
Turning to the three images the article reproduces, in my view, all were permissible. Given Dan's general agreement with respect to 2 and 3, I'll turn to number 1, although what follows is equally applicable to all.
It seems to me that an analysis of ethics of photo journalism reproduction, requires an answer to two questions: (1) what was the image worthy of publication--that is, "newsworthy"; and (2) did the "manipulation" distort the scene the photo journalist tried to capture? In image 1, the scene was consolation. The background was wholly immaterial to that. The happenstance of the white and yellow blobs in the background was not part of anything that was newsworthy and taking them out neither added nor subtracted from the reality of what anyone at the scene would have seen.
Taking the background out was thus not "wrong" although I would have darkened but not eliminated the glaring and distracting background artifacts.
It seems to me that unless the photograph is part of a "look how lucky I was to be there when these two men shared their grief when the background was not marred by distracting inconsequentia" contest, that Schneider's removal of the inconsequentia was good, not unethical, photo journalism.
Ralph Adam Fine
___________________________________________________________________________
From: J Walton
Date: January 11, 2012 10:11:00 AM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Newspaper reproduction
Whether it is good photo journalism is up for debate.
But it was not good retouching because you didn't need to see the
original to know exactly what he'd done. It's not that hard to set the
black layer to 50% opacity and have a much better image (and keep his award). It's only slightly harder to brush in the correction in a more
subtle way, but either method is no more than 27 seconds of extra
work.
I'm happy to read (most of) this thread, but I'm more interested in
retouching technique than discussing whether bad retouching should
cost a photographer his job or an award. I'm a bit surprised that so
many feel that journalism in the United States (or anywhere else for
that matter) is all that trustworthy to begin with. Maybe I'm jaded
from tweaking images all my life.
But again... do it in a way that nobody could ever tell and we're not
having this conversation.
J Walton
___________________________________________________________________________
From: John Pavel
Date: January 11, 2012 11:36:03 AM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: newspaper reproduction
Here is a further set of examples,in an article by a firm that
post-processes for photographers.
But is 10b engaging in digital manipulation of these photographers'
images? The laboratory's founders don't think so. "We believe that
talking of `manipulation' is correct only when pixels are
`moved', therefore when the minimum unit of a digital image is at
least either replaced or cloned," says 10b on its website. "In these
cases we can talk of a mystification of reality, whose results not only
represent something different from the original subject but have also
broken the main rule of the photojournalism ethics."
Read more:
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/feature/2133918\
/post-processing-digital-age-photojournalists-10b-photography#ixzz1jATHI\
HIm
<http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/feature/213391\
8/post-processing-digital-age-photojournalists-10b-photography#ixzz1jATH\
IHIm>
Best, John Pavel
___________________________________________________________________________
From: "Howard Smith"
Date: January 11, 2012 11:11:05 AM EST
Subject: RE: [colortheory] Re: Newspaper reproduction
On January 11, 2012, J Walton said
I'm a bit surprised that so many feel
that journalism in the United States (or anywhere else for that matter) is
all that trustworthy to begin with.
Well stated! I'm equally surprised that so many Forum members take
newspapers so seriously in the first place. Certainly in my rather lengthy
lifetime they have been a questionable source of facts. The content is
sometimes interesting, especially the sales advertising and the comics, but
the rest is more suitable for lining bird cages. Speaking only for myself,
I can't recall a single instance in which I carefully examined a newspaper
photo in an attempt to determine the photographer's intent, to evaluate the
quality of the photographer's composition, or to critique the colors used.
I glance at them, say either "Hmmm.." or "that's a good one!", and then go
on to better ways to occupy my mind. If I am seeking real information, I
watch TV news broadcasts (mostly for entertainment), check the Internet, or
read material written by people who know their subjects. All such content
has to be evaluated and filtered, no matter the source. But in my own
biased way of looking at the situation, newspapers are at best a very
temporary source of entertainment instead of the sole source of news (along
with the radio) that many of us trusted and relied upon for many years.
The world is changing. We adapt or die.
Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Duane Ruck
Date: January 11, 2012 1:17:17 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Newspaper reproduction
At the considered risk of injecting religion into the discussion, I will join the choir you're both preaching to. Amen.
Regards,
Duane Ruck
Howard Smith wrote:
On January 11, 2012, J Walton said "I'm a bit surprised that so many feel
that journalism in the United States (or anywhere else for that matter) is
all that trustworthy to begin with."
Well stated! I'm equally surprised that so many Forum members take
newspapers so seriously in the first place. Certainly in my rather lengthy
lifetime they have been a questionable source of facts. The content is
sometimes interesting, especially the sales advertising and the comics, but
the rest is more suitable for lining bird cages.
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Margulis
Date: January 11, 2012 2:13:01 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Newspaper reproduction--Moderator statement
J writes,
I'm happy to read (most of) this thread, but I'm more interested in
retouching technique than discussing whether bad retouching should
cost a photographer his job or an award. I'm a bit surprised that so
many feel that journalism in the United States (or anywhere else for
that matter) is all that trustworthy to begin with. Maybe I'm jaded
from tweaking images all my life.
This is a good time for another moderator note. Newspaper reproduction is of concern to us. What people expect of us with respect to "ethics" is on-topic. The finances of newspapers to the extent that they impact production procedures are on-topic, too. And whether the newspapers care about print quality, this, too, concerns us.
Admittedly it is very difficult to draw the line, but we should not let the discussion degenerate into questions of whether newspapers themselves are a good idea, or are particularly honest, or run by people whom we would be happy to have as dinner companions.
I also reiterate a previous warning against injecting American politics into the thread.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Andrew Webb
Date: January 11, 2012 3:05:39 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Newspaper reproduction
On Jan 11, 2012, at 7:34 AM, Ralph Adam Fine arranged some pixels so they looked like this:
It seems to me that unless the photograph is part of a "look how lucky I was to be there when these two men shared their grief when the background was not marred by distracting inconsequentia" contest, that Schneider's removal of the inconsequentia was good, not unethical, photo journalism.
I disagree. I think that it changes the emotional impact of the shot—the men are now alone, against the darkness, and so we feel more deeply for them. That's misrepresenting the situation and manipulating the audience.
The other two shots referred to seem to be matters of exposure and not undue manipulation.
The basic premise of the article, that newspaper picture and copy editors manipulate images and perception of content by other means, and that photographers should therefore be allowed to do whatever the hell they want is really wrongheaded. Two wrongs don't make anything better. The entire editorial sounds like it was written by a whiny child who doesn't like it that the world isn't fair, and is riddled with grandiose statements and poor arguments.
/webb
___________________________________________________________________________
VI. The Bill Comes Due for Birdbrained Retouching Technique
From: Dan Margulis
Date: February 4, 2012 8:22:48 AM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Another newspaper photo manipulation
Further to our recent thread, here is another example of a manipulation that threatens to cost the newspaper photographer his job (he is now "suspended pending investigation")
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/01/4232790/setting-it-straight-photo-manipulated.html#storylink=misearch
The photographer was shooting a bird festival. A snowy egret had decided to steal the lunch of a great egret, which had caught a frog and was holding it in its bill. The photographer and the thieving bird both did a lot of snapping at the same time. In one shot, the snowy egret was snapping photogenically, but (so thought the photographer) the frog wasn't very visible in the great egret's bill. He happened to have another shot where the frog was arguably more obvious, but in this shot the snowy egret wasn't snapping.
The photographer had the less-than-inspired idea of taking one bird from each shot and combining them into a new reality. His bosses were not impressed, and issued the linked apology.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
From: J Walton
Date: February 4, 2012 12:26:41 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Another newspaper photo manipulation
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Dan Margulis wrote:
Further to our recent thread, here is another example of a manipulation that threatens to cost the newspaper photographer his job (he is now "suspended pending investigation")
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/01/4232790/setting-it-straight-photo-manipulated.html#storylink=misearch
OK, this time I sing a slightly different tune. In the previous
examples I harped on the poor retouching technique, but felt the idea
was fine. In this case he should not have made that manipulation, AND
it was poorly done.
Reading the article, they did not need to look at his originals to see
what was done. All they had to do was see that THE SAME PLANT WAS
DUPLICATED twice in the shot.
Look people, it's not that hard. If you want to retouch newspaper
shots, you have to do so in a way that nobody will call you out on it.
There is a 10 minute retouch there that involves no plant duplication,
just a bill replacement. It is convincing and nobody will be the
wiser.
Or, even better, the original shot wasn't that bad anyway. Knowing
your paper's (and the industry's) distaste for altering images, maybe
jazzing up a bird festival shot isn't where you want to play that
card. Just run the original shot, which will turn to mush on newsprint
anyway, and call it a day.
J Walton
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Russell
Date: February 4, 2012 5:49:08 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Another newspaper photo manipulation
I agree this was a poor choice - the composition of the composited image,
is much better, but the story is now that of a smaller bird catching the
larger one off guard, with a better chance of taking the frog away.
How about using a standardized icon - a lasso for example, in the bottom
right corner of cut and pasted images to signify that they have been
spatially rearranged? That would seem to solve the problem of "enhanced"
images masquerading as accurate ones.
Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Davis
Date: February 5, 2012 5:35:54 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Another newspaper photo manipulation
I seem to recall some disagreement over my suggestion that altered
photos be labeled as "altered" along with an explanation. If this is
what you are suggesting, then I think you're the only one that has
agreed with this idea. The arguments in disagreement seemed to range
from the position that every photo is altered in some way or another
to the impossibility of defining "altered".
As long as these shenanigans are going on, and especially since they
aren't being discouraged by photojournalists, then we might reasonably
assume that the practice will grow. Several posts have suggested that
improvement in sloppy work is the answer. A craftier lie is better?
In the linked piece we aren't told how the trickery was detected.
Henry
__________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Russell
Date: February 6, 2012 2:37:58 AM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Another newspaper photo manipulation
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Henry Davis wrote:
I seem to recall some disagreement over my suggestion that altered
photos be labeled as "altered" along with an explanation. If this is
what you are suggesting, then I think you're the only one that has
agreed with this idea. The arguments in disagreement seemed to range
from the position that every photo is altered in some way or another
to the impossibility of defining "altered"
As it gets easier and easier to manipulate photographs, it's an idea worth
thinking about. The alternative seems to be to assume a photograph has not
been altered, and get all hot and bothered when it turns out it is. I
think it would be more realistic to label heavily altered images as such,
particularly when the viewer's interpretation of the image will be
significantly altered.
There have, of course, been well-known tricks with conventional optics.
Political candidates, for example, can be photographed from below the jaw
line, and from close up, to give them an aggressive, old, and ugly look.
The easel can be tilted to distort facial features, etc. And it is only a
very short length of time before we will start to see Humphrey Bogart in
modern settings that are undetectable from him actually being there. At
that point, we may turn to forensic chain of custody methods to ensure the
authenticity of an image, perhaps requiring that a digitally signed raw
file be kept on a protected server for images that are considered
important. It is also possible, by embedding Photoshop's History Log, to
document the sequence of operations that were performed on the image.
Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Ron Kelly
Date: February 6, 2012 11:37:22 AM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Another newspaper photo manipulation
Mike
I'm aware that some digital camera manufacturers have a system for evidence worthy
pictures, such as can be used in court. It's some type of software that assures that the capture has been unaltered.
I don't know how it works, but it's possible that such a system could be used for news
photos.
The problem, as I see it, is that if that were the case, there would be *no* alterations allowed,
ie color corrections, cropping, sharpening, etc, otherwise the "security software" can't validate
it.
I think we have to look at the examples we've seen in this discussion so far, and ask ourselves
if we'd prefer to have a system that would prevent any malfeasance at the cost of handcuffing
the creative process entirely.
I wouldn't prefer that scenario as a reader or photographer. Personally, I'm for asking people
to use good ethics, judgement, and to hold them accountable when we find that they haven't.
Roughly speaking, that is what's happening.
I wouldn't try to answer an ethical question with a technical fix. I just don't think it will work;
it will be possible to get around any system by those who have the money and the "means."
Ron Kelly
__________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Margulis
Date: February 6, 2012 2:23:36 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Another newspaper photo manipulation
J writes,
Look people, it's not that hard. If you want to retouch newspaper
shots, you have to do so in a way that nobody will call you out on it.
There is a 10 minute retouch there that involves no plant duplication,
just a bill replacement. It is convincing and nobody will be the
wiser.
Or, even better, the original shot wasn't that bad anyway. Knowing
your paper's (and the industry's) distaste for altering images, maybe
jazzing up a bird festival shot isn't where you want to play that card.
Apparently he played that card at least twice in the past, with the result that he has now been fired instead of "suspended pending investigation".
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/161983/sacramento-bee-fires-bryan-patrick-for-photo-manipulation/
The explanation by the newspaper:
In one image published in a photo gallery at sacbee.com in September of a lone person in a sunflower field, Patrick removed the shadow of his camera and arm from the photograph, inserting sunflowers in its place.
In a 2009 photograph of the Auburn wildfire that was published unaltered in the newspaper, Patrick subtly enlarged the flames in the photograph submitted for a winning entry to the San Francisco Bay Area Press Photographers Association annual contest. An anonymous email to The Bee late Thursday cast suspicion on that photograph.
The Beeâs ethics policy and style guide prohibit such alteration, saying, "To maintain the credibility of The Sacramento Bee, documentary photographs will not be manipulated in any way that alters the reality of the image."
Since I called another newspaper's intelligence and ethics into question in the firing of another photographer in superficially similar circumstances, I would have to say that based on this explanation I think management did the right thing here. And, unlike the other photographer, this one is not going to have the support of his colleagues. Cheating on contest entries is a good way to ensure that.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
VII. HDR and What the Viewer Expects
From: John Pavel
Date: February 6, 2012 1:53:35 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Another newspaper photo manipulation
Here is a further case:
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/159412/washington-post-raises-eyebrows-with-composite-photo-on-front-page/
Note: the picture is of a drastically accentuated sunset over a bridge. No observer would ever accept it as a "natural" photograph.
Is the use of HDR techniques acceptable in photojournalism? If the test is that the photo should contain only elements taken at the same time, the answer is "no", but even that test is not clear cut when some cameras can now create HDRs themselves.
John Pavel
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Duane Ruck
Date: February 6, 2012 4:18:38 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Another newspaper photo manipulation
Dan Margulis wrote:
Since I called another newspaper's intelligence and ethics into question in the firing of another photographer in superficially similar circumstances, I would have to say that based on this explanation I think management did the right thing here. And, unlike the other photographer, this one is not going to have the support of his colleagues. Cheating on contest entries is a good way to ensure that.
I would be in agreement with that position as well as that of Ron Kelly in this matter and sympathetic to that of J Walton.
I do think we are looking at two separate issues involved with both of the newspaper examples.
One of them is the matter of what is and is not considered fraudulent activities by the industry in general and all that implies in oversight and correction.It's not all that difficult to determine the extremes of the scale while it's likely to be forever contentious as to the dividing lines where the scale tips over.My personal belief is that the line is very mutable and that imposing an arbitrary rule has worse consequences than leaving it to float.
The second and I think as yet unspoken aspect of all this is that in the private sphere (aside from,at least in the US, legal issues of race, gender, age and religious discrimination) all employees are always at risk of discharge for any reason whatsoever or even none at all. While others are free to question the competence of those making such decisions it is still their right to be brilliant or idiotic as it may be. Such truth makes it incumbent on the employee not to be so dumb as to flout the rules of his own employer without acceptance of the risk inherent to his or her acts.
Thus, in my view, the first examples justification was suspect while in the second the individual got what he deserved, but both came a cropper on their own hubris as to institutional accountability.
Regards,
Duane Ruck
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Margulis
Date: February 9, 2012 4:52:22 AM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Another newspaper photo manipulation
John Pavel writes,
Is the use of HDR techniques acceptable in photojournalism?
First you'd have to make a definition. They didn't need multiple exposures to make the composite that they did--all the detail would have been in the original shot, nothing blown out, so they could have gotten there with a hyperaggressive application of PPW.
This image was deliberately intended to have a surreal look IMHO--I can't believe that anybody would accept it as realistic, so the caption indicating that it was artificially produced seems practically unnecessary. Nevertheless, I don't think anybody would find an ethical problem as they ran it, considering that the caption made absolutely clear that it was not a straight-out-of-the-camera image.
If the test is that the photo should contain only elements taken at the same time, the answer is "no", but even that test is not clear cut when some cameras can now create HDRs themselves.
And now it gets even more murky. If PPW can get the same surrealistic result with one exposure, are we going to say that doing something visually identical but using two is unacceptable?
But if we say that hyperaggressive PPW (or the double-exposure technique) to produce a result that everyone agrees is surrealistic is unacceptable in the absence of an explanatory caption, what do we say about a less aggressive treatment that some people find surreal and others realistic and still others to be normal color correction? Does it require an explanation? Do we get fired if we guess wrong?
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Greg Groess
Date: February 9, 2012 7:13:24 AM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Another newspaper photo manipulation
What about time exposures? Or converting a color image to black and white? These alter the reality of the image but are accepted...
Greg Groess
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Davis
Date: February 9, 2012 5:01:49 PM EST
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Another newspaper photo manipulation
I think subject matter would count for some of the rationale. You
might suspect the axe if a story regarding the delegate count were to
be accompanied by your psychedelically stylized political portrait.
If the story is about a recent string of vivid sunsets then you might
get away with a little enhancement. In any case, it might be time for
guidelines for the equipment and practices used by news
photojournalists.
Out of the camera differences between the most accurately recorded
image file and the best interpretive image file are coming into play.
That's not to say that filters and other film related devices haven't
been available all along. Those "analogue" things were pretty well
ironed out amongst photojournalists and publishers - weren't they? It
seems hard to believe that this is such a difficult thing today. It's
almost as if there's a lobby of people who don't want a set of
guidelines.
Henry
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Duane Ruck
Date: February 10, 2012 7:43:13 PM EST
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Another newspaper photo manipulation
Henry Davis wrote:
Those "analogue" things were pretty well
ironed out amongst photojournalists and publishers - weren't they?
Uh..well no.Never were and never will be IMO.As always, the owners nee: publishers set their own individual standards and enforced what they wished to enforce which was, and is, also a fungible thing.
It's almost as if there's a lobby of people who don't want a set of guidelines.
Pretty much "yes" just as there are some who seemingly can't live without a rigid structure in place in order to obviate the need for personal thought or responsibility.
The answer to Dan's question " Do we get fired if we guess wrong? "
in all probability is..'possibly'. Life is a dangerous game and we all end up dead in the end.
Regards,
Duane Ruck