Reuters drops photographer for digital manipulation

Carrotblog said:
Quote:
Basically he was sacked for ineptness.



Quote:
He was sacked for a bit more than that. He was caught lying to his employer.
Regardless of digital or analogue, it's still not acceptable to tell porkies in a profession. Except politics.


Quote:
Not quite; if he had done a good job of photoshop, nobody would have noticed, and he still would have been lying, but not sacked...

Quote:

Then he wouldn't have been sacked, because he wasn't inept. No offence duh! 😉

I guess that's why we have politicans to argue 😉


xoxoxo

Miffy

http://carrotblog.livejournal.com
Click to expand...

So he WAS sacked for ineptness.

Lord, I love these circular arguments, nobody loses, nobody wins, we're all on the same merrigoround 😛 😀
They are best over a considerable number of beers 😉
 
Last edited:
Reuters:

His B sample came back positive for unusually high testosterone levels. Which, if any of you had bother to do the research, causes subjects to be over-aggressive in photoshop.
 
Flyfisher Tom said:
His B sample came back positive for unusually high testosterone levels. Which, if any of you had bother to do the research, causes subjects to be over-aggressive in photoshop.
Click to expand...
I guess they haven't refined the test for kitsche. That would have been off the scale; very evident in the cloning in this case, imvho.
 
There is something rotten....

There is something rotten....

The more I think about this story the less sense it makes.
1. How can a professional photographers make such a mess of a cloning job?
2. How come the battery of professional photo-editors at Reuters, who edit every picture coming in from their field photographers have missed this?
3.Where did the "original" photograph come from? It is inconceivable that it came from the photog himself.
4.How could a pro start denying when confronted with such blatant evidence?

I think something was manipulated and it was the news release itself to discredit the guy. It is the only explanation.
 
I am going to have to add to the clamour that he was fired not only for the manipulation but also for the crappy job of photo-choppin

The weird thing is I don't even see why that photo needed editing, possible some contrast for deeper colors but there was enough smoke in the original no need for more.
 
Thanks Ghost,an interesting thread and also an illuminating link to the "Zeit"newpaper.
In the end, manipulated or not, is is not that photographs themselves are but mirrors of reality that speak in symbols? The perfect undistorting mirror has yet to be made. If a photograph conveys an impression of reality it is enough. The famous photograph of Marines raising the flag in WWII looks staged. Yet it is justly an icon, as it conveys the moment perfectly -and therefore it depicts the truth. Does the cloned smoke convey the impact of a bomb? It does -truthfully.
 
I have heard it mentioned that the photographer who manipulated the image (I've seen it and it is pathetic) claimed he was trying to remove dust spots.

From what? There was no negative or print on which to have dust spots if I understand the story right. He was shooting a digital camera, downloading to ps or something very much like it, manipulating the image, saving it as a j-peg and sending it to Reuters. What had dust on it? If the lens had dust on it you would not see it as spots but as a lessening of contrast and sharpness if very heavy or not at all if only a small amount of dust.
 
One theory (not mine) goes he "snapped" and cloned the "dust" over and over and over and over and over and over.

I theorized (notice my tongue in my cheek) some twinkies may have had something to do with it; that, or easily-distracted critiquers (end tongue-in-cheek)

And the horse is very dead --- this went on all day yesterday...just check the whole thread out
 
gabrielma said:
One theory (not mine) goes he "snapped" and cloned the "dust" over and over and over and over and over and over.

I theorized (notice my tongue in my cheek) some twinkies may have had something to do with it; that, or easily-distracted critiquers (end tongue-in-cheek)

And the horse is very dead --- this went on all day yesterday...just check the whole thread out
Click to expand...


At first I thought you were reffering to me but I just looked and you are the only one not to have posted your critiques on round #11. Back to the salt mines Big G!...🙂
 
remrf said:
I have heard it mentioned that the photographer who manipulated the image (I've seen it and it is pathetic) claimed he was trying to remove dust spots.

From what? There was no negative or print on which to have dust spots if I understand the story right. He was shooting a digital camera, downloading to ps or something very much like it, manipulating the image, saving it as a j-peg and sending it to Reuters. What had dust on it? If the lens had dust on it you would not see it as spots but as a lessening of contrast and sharpness if very heavy or not at all if only a small amount of dust.
Click to expand...

You cannot be a digital photographer... Sensor dust is the bane of digital pixelpeepers who do not practice sensible dust prevention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom