Reuters drops photographer for digital manipulation

Carrotblog

Carrotblog

Established
Local time
2:02 AM
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
63
Location
Underground
View My Gallery
Honestly, it is very stupid, Digital is manipulation from begining till the end! well, images that goes through the wide or tele lens is also manipulated but opticly! what does it make difference?
 
Why is digital manipulation from beginning to end? From the time photography became popular in the 1930s, airbrushing advanced in sophistication, too. Do check out a wonderful book called The Commissar Vanishes - a connected website is here: http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/

As for the Reuters photographer, Adnan Hajj, he deserved the sack, purely for being so inept. Why the agency didn't spot these photos look suspicious is beyond me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5254838.stm
 
Basically he was sacked for ineptness. Even I would not have made such obvious cloning marks! On the other hand, the contrast enhancing is no manipulation imo, as that is no different than, for instance, changing development or doing any other wet darkroom work. Having said that, the news value of the manipulated photograph is no different from the original one.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but that is the most pathetic photoshop-job I have EVER seen. If thats how little skill you need, and I was doing better when I was 12, how the hell am I not a reuters photographer???
 
I recently got some pictures scanned from a national newspaper showing a crowd of people attending some manifestation with political impact. Looking carefully, you could see how the pictures were manipulated by copying and pasting parts of the crowd to make the number of attendees look much higher.

That's the same lie as writing in the article that 1000 people were present instead of the actual 100...

A news photographer should have the same deontology as the news writer, to my opinion.

Nachkebia is right that manipulation is inherent to any picture-taking. The same way, there's no news article that is 100% facts. There's always a selection of the most relevant information according to the news writer's (professional) opinion. And selection is manipulation. But on the other hand, the facts that are finally selected, should be 100% correct and no lies.

Same goes for photography: you can select angles and leave out elements of the composition according to your (hopefully professional) opinion, but the final picture should not be a lie!

Groeten,

Vic
 
Of course, the best photo's suspend the truth in favour of aesthetics. Think of Halsman.

But yes, the 'news' is there to convey the truth, not lies.
 
With journlalism, written or photographic, the publishers, editors and information-consuming public are relying on the correspondent or photographer to use his/her judgment in an evenhanded manner that describes and depicts the event without distorting it.

With the rise of digital photographer, most news organizations have strengthened their photo guidelines, not loosened them. Deep burns and dodges that were once acceptable in wet darkroom -- but difficult to master -- are generally forbidden.

I'm actually relieved that the manipulation is so easy to detect. I'd like to think news photographers don't spend too much time with photoshop. In truth, they've never been all that highly skilled in the technical side. A good news photographer is spending much of his/her energy on moving around the news scene, looking for angles and moments, then getting the images filed as hastily as possible.

>>I was doing better when I was 12, how the hell am I not a reuters photographer???<< Because you're not on the frontlines under fire on a retainer that is perhaps a few hundred dollars a month, competing with numerous other photographers and knowing the money will stop as soon as the headlines move to a new hot zone ... unless you develop a lifestyle that keeps you constantly on the move to follow the headlines; your work is also under constant scrutiny from editors and the public ... some days you're not performing at your peak because you're human, but you're a freelancer, so every day's income depends on top-quality images that beat out the competition ... you missed the shot. You saw it unfold before you but missed the moment this time. That clone tool is so tempting ... using it will even more accurately show the scene than what you captured. It'll convey the emotion more accurately. Editor's calling. Where are the pics? Using the clone tool will almost ensure the sale and more photo play. You're in such a rush. Other photograhers are filing their photos!
 
but the point I was making is, you shouldnt NEED to use those effects, and my point should be strengthened not weakened by your arguments. A good photographer, rather, ANY photographer for the press shouldn't have time to photoshop an image before sending it to the editor.
 
>>but the point I was making is, you shouldnt NEED to use those effects<<

That's my point, too. But we're all human. We all have temptations.

I think the credible photographer will realize he could've done better, hit the SEND button, then start thinking about the next shoot.

A problem is that it's a business where very pushy, manipulative, talented, driven, intense people are expected to perform within ethical standards. They may also very intensely have a personal viewpoint in the matter. It's hard not to have a personal viewpoint when the stakes are so high.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, it is very stupid, Digital is manipulation from begining till the end! well, images that goes through the wide or tele lens is also manipulated but opticly! what does it make difference?
Click to expand...

It might seem silly, unless English is your first language.

Digital imaging is distinct from digital manipulation.
Imaging with telephoto or wide-angle lens can take place on film or digital capture.

To blur the boundary by redefining 'imaging' as 'manipulation' when a telephoto lens is used isn't convincing at all.

Manipulation of the photograph's content (i.e. more smoke) is unacceptable at Reuters, whereas altering a photograph's form (i.e. exposure level) is acceptable.

The weird bit is where the Reuters staff indite the photographer saying an amateur could do better: amateur photographers often do a lot better, because they take time, have time to take over photographs.

I'm sorry but that is the most pathetic photoshop-job I have EVER seen. If thats how little skill you need, and I was doing better when I was 12, how the hell am I not a reuters photographer???
Click to expand...

Because you're not worshipping reuters with a capital R for a start 😉
Secondly, you're underage 😉

Basically he was sacked for ineptness.
Click to expand...

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.

Of course, the best photo's suspend the truth in favour of aesthetics. Think of Halsman.
Click to expand...

Thumbs and paws up!

Vince's point about the hard working lifestyles of PJs is a good one. A good PJ still has time to be honest to his employer. If a PJ lies about his imaging, and then lies to his employer, is it not very clear, that he is not in a position to capture the 'truth' of the news?

I feel sorry for Mr Affi to some extent - there he is, placing his life on the line, yet dishonest with himself for doing it.

xoxoxoxo

Miffy
http://carrotblog.livejournal.com
 
Basically he was sacked for ineptness.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

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...😉
 
Ash said:
I'm sorry but that is the most pathetic photoshop-job I have EVER seen. If thats how little skill you need, and I was doing better when I was 12, how the hell am I not a reuters photographer???
Click to expand...
I agree, that just looks awful. What was the point of doing that in the first place? The mental maturity for doing...oh, I won't go there...
 
VinceC said:
It'll convey the emotion more accurately. Editor's calling. Where are the pics? Using the clone tool will almost ensure the sale and more photo play. You're in such a rush. Other photograhers are filing their photos!
Click to expand...
You have a very good point and perspective on this. But that just makes me think even less of this, and makes me feel more that this is then pure and simple cheating. The fact that "others do it" doesn't mean that you have to. I can't imagine the level of stress they undergo professionally and economically (not to mention the field).

It is very very hard to say what is acceptable and what is not. Cloning smoke from a war field scene when the subject is war itself...I think common sense would dictate that's not acceptable.
 
The photographer was hoping to make the airstrike look a lot worse than it was. Not saying it wan't a bad thing in the first place....the airstrike that is.
 
gabrielma said:
You have a very good point and perspective on this. But that just makes me think even less of this, and makes me feel more that this is then pure and simple cheating. The fact that "others do it" doesn't mean that you have to. I can't imagine the level of stress they undergo professionally and economically (not to mention the field).

It is very very hard to say what is acceptable and what is not. Cloning smoke from a war field scene when the subject is war itself...I think common sense would dictate that's not acceptable.
Click to expand...

Gabriel makes a very good point. The fact that others do it, does your excuse one's own conduct.

For years, any time criticism is brought against recent US administrations, the response is: "at least we don't do it like" .... [insert totalitarian regime, USSR, China, Iran, Syria etc ]. Well, that is a mighty high standard isn't it, comparing one self to the lowest denominator.

Just because someone else is doing it, or even doing it even more perversely, does not excuse one's own behavior. I'd like to think my country can aspire to highest denominator thinking, rather than lowest denominator thinking. 🙂
 
Flyfisher Tom said:
journalist or artist ... the photographer needs only to pick one if he/she works for a news agency.
Click to expand...

W. Eugene Smith managed to be both...

Part of the problem is that war in the middle East war is as much about public relations as it is about tanks and missles. News organizations are walking a fine line to keep from being labled "biased".
 
i have to wonder how many manipulated news photos go unnoticed when someone who really knows how to use photoshop properly does something like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom