Topic: Theoretical question on etiquette (Read 5149 times)

Brammers · « **on:** January 07, 2010, 03:41:20 pm »

Suppose you were hosting an event for a photographer and requested one or two of his/her best shots to produce promotional materials. You notice errors in one of the shots you receive that you can fix yourself - something simple and obviously wrong such as a poor white balance, CA or an unlevel horizon. You need to produce a poster to advertise the event, but you wouldn't be happy using the shot as is if it were your own work. You want to 'fix' the work...

What would you do? Fix it and not tell him/her? Leave the errors there and hope noone notices? Give him/her a call or email and discuss the problems? Use a different piece of work?

Would your action depend on who the event was hosted by? Would you work differently depending on whether you were making posters for a small, local camera group, a major local retailer, a famous gallery or an international manufacturer?

Would your action depend on who the photographer was? Would you 'correct' the work of a local pro volunteering to talk more readily than you would a world-famous star?

I'd appreciate some thoughts regarding this kind of collaborative effort!

Slobodan Blagojevic · « **Reply #1 on:** January 07, 2010, 04:20:52 pm »

There is no doubt in my mind that the artist must be consulted before any changes are made, regardless of who he/she is, or what is the occasion or target audience.

skid00skid00 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 07, 2010, 08:23:19 pm »

The photographer has copyright, and could sue you for altering his image.

Mike Boden · « **Reply #3 on:** January 07, 2010, 08:59:35 pm »

Is this a trick question? The obvious answer is to consult to photographer.

Brammers · « **Reply #4 on:** January 07, 2010, 09:16:42 pm »

Not a trick question at all. Personally, if I was going to speak for a group of people, sent them some images as publicity and had them returned with requests for corrections I'd be a bit put out. For the same reasons, I'd be loathe to point out flaws in the work of someone who was coming to speak - kinda starts the whole thing off on a bad note?

Would anyone ignore the flaws and print the posters with them in, hoping noone else would notice/care? Or would anyone just make a subtle change - fix a touch of CA here, clone out a dust-spot there? I know it's not right, but could it be the lesser evil in such a case?

Farmer · « **Reply #5 on:** January 07, 2010, 09:26:24 pm »

Quote from: Brammers

Not a trick question at all. Personally, if I was going to speak for a group of people, sent them some images as publicity and had them returned with requests for corrections I'd be a bit put out. For the same reasons, I'd be loathe to point out flaws in the work of someone who was coming to speak - kinda starts the whole thing off on a bad note?

Would anyone ignore the flaws and print the posters with them in, hoping noone else would notice/care? Or would anyone just make a subtle change - fix a touch of CA here, clone out a dust-spot there? I know it's not right, but could it be the lesser evil in such a case?

Never ever alter someone's image without their permission.

If they take offence or get upset about talking about the images, you're dealing with the wrong person.

We frequently make authorised use of images from various high profile photographers - sometimes they give us carte blanche to make simple adjustments to suit our needs on the basis that they'll give a final approval, others want to provide the final image themselves. What is always the case is that both sides can discuss the requirements of both parties in a mature and professional manner without anyone's ego being put out. Just because the photog likes a shot doesn't mean it's right for us and just because we like a shot doesn't mean the photog wants it used in that way.

Most are fine with making changes to deal with technical flaws (although it's extremely rare that we receive them that way except in situations where it's raw files from a recent shoot from someone who's just stepped off the plane, in which case they're usually happy for us to do something with them).

So, never, ever alter someone else's image and then make use of it and if discuss that causes a problem, then you need to part ways. And, as a photog, never be upset if someone makes such a comment to you. If there *is* a technical flaw, deal with it or explain you can't or don't want to as is the case. If it's just a matter of taste, by all means explain your intent in the shot but accept that if they don't like it then you need to consider supplying something else if you don't want to alter it. That's business.

daws · « **Reply #6 on:** January 07, 2010, 09:42:05 pm »

Quote from: Brammers

Suppose you were hosting an event for a photographer and requested one or two of his/her best shots to produce promotional materials. You notice errors in one of the shots you receive that you can fix yourself - something simple and obviously wrong such as a poor white balance, CA or an unlevel horizon. You need to produce a poster to advertise the event, but you wouldn't be happy using the shot as is if it were your own work.

In my opinion, the phrase I emphasized is the key.

If you're the the proprietor of a venue, the producer of a show or the editor of a magazine, you must decide if you wish to maintain your standards. If you do, then you can't use the photograph as is.

That you can fix the poster's white balance yourself is a given. But can you do so in a manner that does not unbalance your relationship with the photographer?

The answer to that question is more questions: how much do you care about maintaining a healthy relationship with the photographer? How good are your communication skills? How sensitive are you as a listener? How defensive can you be made by someone to whom you have accidentally given offense?

Brammers · « **Reply #7 on:** January 07, 2010, 10:03:19 pm »

I see your point Farmer, but I'm still somewhat on the fence. Firstly, I'm not talking about 'artistic' changes - I'd obviously never edit someone's work like that without permission. I'm talking about tiny, tiny flaws - a dust spot, a highlight edge that's still got some CA, a little stitching error... Just something tiny, that's obviously a mistake that's somehow slipped the net.

I'm still somewhat inclined towards the opinion that it would be better to make a fix like this than to 'reject' a piece of work - especially if it's a new relationship that you're starting up. Or maybe to downplay the event and just include it as an afterthought - "P.S. I noted a dust spot that you missed in the sky, I've cloned it out to save you the trouble but if you'd rather send me a new version please feel free to do so."

One thing you're not doing by fixing something so minor is commenting on the work itself - it's not a criticism. It's just a slip of the tongue, so to speak, noone should be offended by it and maybe sometimes it's better to avoid the channce of offence... I've seen dust bunnies in some great work - including some of the front pages on this site. It doesn't make the shots any worse, it's just something that needs fixing. As there's no artistic statement to be made by a single click with the heal brush, does it matter who does it?

Still making my mind up on this, so I'll gladly listen to anything more anyone has to add!

Mike Boden · « **Reply #8 on:** January 07, 2010, 10:25:44 pm »

To me, it sounds like your objective with asking this question is more to justify your actions of "fixing" what you deem as a technical flaw versus listening to what everyone's said thus far. I think your opinion has already been made. But if you read everyone's responses, there is an overwhelming belief that you should be discussing this with the photographer before doing anything. You're aware that you're asking a bunch of photographers, right?

Seriously, what's the problem here? Why is it so difficult to have a discussion with the photographer? Instead of fixing and then saying in passing that you fixed it, why can't you say (in passing) that you noticed a flaw and that you would like the image to be fixed? No harm no foul.

Brammers · « **Reply #9 on:** January 07, 2010, 10:33:10 pm »

Quote from: Mike Boden

To me, it sounds like your objective with asking this question is more to justify your actions of "fixing" what you deem as a technical flaw versus listening to what everyone's said thus far. I think your opinion has already been made. But if you read everyone's responses, there is an overwhelming belief that you should be discussing this with the photographer before doing anything. You're aware that you're asking a bunch of photographers, right?

Seriously, what's the problem here? Why is it so difficult to have a discussion with the photographer? Instead of fixing and then saying in passing that you fixed it, why can't you say (in passing) that you noticed a flaw and that you would like the image to be fixed? No harm no foul.

Totally wrong Mike. As you correctly surmised, it's not entirely a theoretical question - I've done it before. My course of action was to contact the photographer, point out the flaw and get it fixed.

I'm not entirely sure that's the only way to go about things though, although I did things 'properly' I felt a little ungrateful. Here was a guy giving up his time to come and talk and I'm 'rejecting' his shots - wouldn't it be better if I'd just been thankful and accepted the shot, either fixing or ignoring the problem?

I'm well aware that a lot of people in here deal with a very high level of photography, hence my questions about different situations. daws seemed to think that this kind of action was ok in some circumstances - anyone else?

Mike Boden · « **Reply #10 on:** January 07, 2010, 11:06:23 pm »

Here's a little story....

Aside from being a photographer, I work as a re-recording mixer in TV and film. Several years back, I was working in the sound department at Universal Pictures doing restoration of old films. At one point, we restored the audio for many of Stanley Kubrick's films, one particular one was "The Shining." Well, the source audio for this title had many problems including hiss, broadband noise, hum, thumps, pops, etc. During the restoration process a decision was made with respect to how much hiss and broadband noise was to be removed. This actually occurred scene by scene based on the audio content of that scene. Well, the music score at many points in the movie had high-frequency pizzicato strings. This forced us to keep the hiss level somewhat higher than normal to keep the music as originally intended.

After the soundtrack was restored, the film and audio were delivered to another facility to be used in a telecine transfer. At this facility, the telecine operator thought that the soundtrack had too much hiss and chose to EQ the audio and reduce it. He thought that it was a technical flaw. In many situations this may be true, but not so in this particular instance. The restoration of this track took a couple of weeks and was client supervised. The amount and volume level of hiss was a necessary by-product.

Take a guess as to what happened to Mr. Telecine-I'll-fix-your-technical-flaw-man? He got fired!

---

Moral of the story: Discuss openly with your client (the photographer) about anything you interpret as technical flaws. You're only doing yourself a favor as well as your client.

daws · « **Reply #11 on:** January 08, 2010, 01:22:54 am »

Quote from: Brammers

One thing you're not doing by fixing something so minor is commenting on the work itself - it's not a criticism. It's just a slip of the tongue, so to speak, noone should be offended by it and maybe sometimes it's better to avoid the channce of offence... I've seen dust bunnies in some great work - including some of the front pages on this site. It doesn't make the shots any worse, it's just something that needs fixing. As there's no artistic statement to be made by a single click with the heal brush, does it matter who does it?

Still making my mind up on this, so I'll gladly listen to anything more anyone has to add!

I mean no disrespect, but in truth it sounds like your mind is made up. In the quote above, you have in effect written the rules by which the photographer should and should not feel. You have listed the justifications why this is a minor issue. You have made it clear why there is no reason he should be offended. And all before you have even spoken with him.

In interpersonal communication terms, you're speaking for both yourself and the other party. Your writing suggests that you are unlikely to listen to the photographer's point of view openly; rather you likely will dispute any feelings he has that are not in sync with yours.

Again, I mean you no disrespect, but from your words it's clear the direction you're heading in this matter.

stamper · « **Reply #12 on:** January 08, 2010, 04:03:27 am »

Quote

You notice errors in one of the shots you receive that you can fix yourself - something simple and obviously wrong such as a poor white balance,

Unquote

What is poor white balance? As far as I know white balance is essentially a colour cast? Many photographers deliberately put a colour cast on an image for artistic reasons. Removing the colour cast would mean a change in the image that the originator wouldn't like? It looks like your ego is getting in the way of objectivity.

Brammers · « **Reply #13 on:** January 08, 2010, 07:02:34 am »

Yeah, a poor white balance is probably a bad example of when to step in - on retrospect I wouldn't consider fixing something like that without consulting. I don't appreciate the suggestion of my ego getting in the way of anything though - I thought I was making it clear that I'd consider this to preserve egos - not to inflate my own...

Mike, great story, and you're right - if I was doing this for money I'd make the phone call. Now what happens if no money is involved? In fact the guy who's coming along is doing you a huge favour! Noone's going to get the sack - does that change anything?

daws - once again, no. As I said, I've already had to deal with this situation and I did, without asking, what everyone says I should have done. I sent an email, brought it up with the photog and got permission to fix the fault (a couple of pixles of CA that stood out on an A2 poster). I'm just ruminating.

So to conclude, I think this is one of those instances when I'm going to follow something without really believing it. For paying work I think the line is clear-cut, but in my situation I didn't feel all that great about rejecting someone's files when he was clearly doing me a massive favour - it almost felt like I'd invited him to speak and then had a change of heart and decided that he wasn't good enough. This is not the case, but it felt like it... But yes, it does seem best to drop an email asking in all situations - as I said myself, I'm not criticising the work...

Thanks for the discussion, and for the suggestions that my ego is out of hand! I have a collection

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #14 on:** January 08, 2010, 10:22:01 am »

I would consult before "fixing" it.

"Hi! There's what looks like a dust speck in the upper right corner. Do you mind if I spot it out, or would you prefer to?"

"Hi! Your sunset image looks to me as if it has an awfully warm color cast. Do you mind if I fix it, or would you prefer to?"

"Hi! The guy on the left has a really ugly mug. Do you mind if I crop him out, or would you prefer to?"

I remember many years ago chatting with a young, struggling painter who had just received a good offer for one of his paintings. The prospective buyer then asked, "Would you mind if I cut off about a foot from the left side? That will make it fit better over my fireplace." The poor painter canceled the sale. He was glad the prospective buyer at least had the courtesy to ask.

Eric

tokengirl · « **Reply #15 on:** January 08, 2010, 11:28:33 am »

If I was the photographer, I would be GRATEFUL if you called me up and pointed out the dust spot or CA that will look really obvious/ugly when the image is printed out poster-sized for all the world to see, and would jump at the chance to make the corrections.

Maybe you are worrying too much about offending this person?

Brammers · « **Reply #16 on:** January 08, 2010, 06:49:08 pm »

Yeah - I think maybe I was.

The reason why I included all of the different situations in the original post is because I really do think this makes a difference. Mike Boden had a very relevant story which describes his point of view, but that's a point of view of equals working on a paid project.

What happens when you're a local photoclub which has managed to bag a famous local photographer - the balance of power is very much in favour of the photog - he's doing the photo club a favour. To then throw his images back at him seems poor form.

On the other hand, if I'd been begging and scrounging to put on a workshop at a famous local gallery for years, and when the day finally came round I submitted something with a dust spot in, the balance of power is very much in their favour.

The situation that I did this in was very much the former example. The photographer who was giving up his time was very apologetic about leaving some CA on the shot I was using and I just wondered if that little situation might have been avoided. I guess not - but I'm glad I asked.

Brad Proctor · « **Reply #17 on:** January 09, 2010, 10:11:01 am »

I'm going to go against the grain here and say there are situations where it is perfectly fine and a lot of gray area. For example, at work I maintain an online publication where I post press releases for events around the city that have pictures accompanying them usually taken with a cheap digicam, iphone or something. I correct every one of these images as best I can and I don't feel any remorse for doing so. If I had to contact every person that took the picture to talk to them about it first I'd never get anything done. Even if I found the person who took the picture to discuss the problems they wouldn't know what I was talking about or even care and probably think I'm crazy for calling them.

However, the OP said it was an even for a photographer in which case I'd agree that they should be contacted.

Shirley Bracken · « **Reply #18 on:** January 09, 2010, 10:44:30 am »

If there is someone that considers themselves the artist behind the camera, his wishes should be considered in every step.. It's just respectful. I'm sure most people would not notice, but an artist will!

The first photograph I showed here taught me to enlarge enough to see the dust bunnies. When one considers themselves a professional, their target viewer is other artists. Other artists know how you got the shot and if you knew how to fix it. My motto is it's not how good you are, it's how well you can fix it. And I know, I know, as I get more advanced with my camera, I will change that to getting a good shot to begin with. I want to learn the lessons but not through seeing it on the front of a brochure for my peers to see. I would definitely want to have a conversation about it first. Ego "shouldn't" enter into it because no matter where it is inflicted, it stop progress.

Yeah, good discussion! Respectful.

Author Topic: Theoretical question on etiquette (Read 5149 times)