8% final World Press Photo entries manipulated and disqualified

[Rob C]

I'm not too sure Rob what all this has to do with whether photo-journos should be allowed to digitally fake their pictures or not.  But you may be outdated about the BBC political bids.  They have just been censured over being too right-leaning in fact.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/opinion/extract-how-the-bbc-leans-to-the-right-9129608.html

Jim

In that case, and based on personal, daily observation, it musts be something that happened during the week or two since the new satellite footprint removed them from my screen!

"As workers, we have distinct interests – we want well-paid, secure jobs with profits shared amongst the workforce, rather than passed to owners, shareholders or consumers. For both businesses and consumers cheap labour is a good thing, for workers it is not."

If this is a fair quotation of the writer's political stance, it explains a lot. Wait - isn't that what Marx hoped was the future? You know, invest nothing, risk nothing, but keep it all?

Regarding the presence or otherwise of trade union representation in the seeking of opinion to be consulted or broadcast, cast your mind back to the appearances of those you can remember - would you welcome their sanguine views again any time soon? Would you buy the message?

Actually, a point with which I do agree in the article, is about growth: I have long held to the view that had I been able to keep to the earning levels of my better years, then I would have been perfectly happy to remain there forever. If anything, this striving for growth is counter-productive in that I think it a distraction that can short-circuit attention to the here-and-now problems that are as important, and are actually real. I think this chase a prime cause of inflation. Personal progress should come from personal improvement, not from muscle and the crushing of others. And certainly not even more automation: we all realise (don't we?) that machines buy nothing, so will they end up producing stuff nobody can buy? Then what?

What has it to do with editing/changing images? Simply that tv does the same thing more subtly and pervasively, and is really just journalism in another medium with lots of cross-over.

;-)

Rob C

[RSL]

By only showing one side you are not necessarily lying - just being selective with what you show/tell.

But if I remove part of the scene in Photoshop so I'm only showing one side that's lying? Sorry, Jim, but I just can't see any moral difference between editing the situation with framing on my camera and editing the scene with Photoshop.

[Isaac]

any moral difference between editing the situation with framing on my camera and editing the scene with Photoshop.

omission versus comission

[jjj]

If you take a picture of some guy that shows him firing the gun and the victim taking the bullet and then crop out the killer because he's a friend of yours, that of course is not the kind of cropping that photojounalism rules are allowing you to do.  That crop would be cause for getting fired. 

So what if he happened to had taken the shot with say a 50mm lens not a 24 mm lens which then didn't include the shooter, is that still acceptable?

Too much of the fuss about certain images not being truthful is being utter nonsense. The absurd fuss over last year's prize winning shot [which was not disqualified as Francisco claimed] and indeed other images by the same photographer only showed how little most people know about photography and how quick they were to condemn without, rather ironically, knowing the facts.

[jjj]

omission versus comission

Which means what? 

[RSL]

omission versus comission

Come on Isaac, even you are smart enough to see that both situations are commission. Maybe not, though, since I have no indication that you've ever framed a picture on a camera.

[jjj]

In no way minor for those citizens involved, but the recent flooding in parts of Britain is a glorious illustration of this very thing: politicians were criticised for not taking their butts down to the floods to see them, when that would have helped nothing and they obviously knew what was going on as well as (if not better than) did those on location, then when they did turn up they were criticised again for taking so long. As if their presence could stop or change a single thing! I couldn't help screaming Canute! at the screen, but that didn't help anyone either.

The thing about the King Cnut/Canute is that everyone gets the facts of the apocryphal story wrong. Cnut never believed he could turn back the tide, he did it to show that in fact as King he was not omnipotent and a mortal like everyone else.

[jjj]

Maybe not, though, since I have no indication that you've ever framed a picture on a camera.

[fdisilvestro]

Too much of the fuss about certain images not being truthful is being utter nonsense. The absurd fuss over last year's prize winning shot [which was not disqualified as Francisco claimed]

You're right, I stand corrected!

[jjj]

Though considering the amount of people that tried to discredit the photographer and the photograph, including so called experts which were anything but. It's an understandable error.

[Rob C]

The thing about the King Cnut/Canute is that everyone gets the facts of the apocryphal story wrong. Cnut never believed he could turn back the tide, he did it to show that in fact as King he was not omnipotent and a mortal like everyone else.

No, I was perfectly aware of the story's true meaning. That's the entire point: like Canute the politicos know they are wasting their time going on-site too - the problems are too big, but the public demands the time sacrifice. It makes it feel better.

Rob C

[jjj]

Fair enough, your use of Cnut's name could be taken either way.

[Jim Pascoe]

But if I remove part of the scene in Photoshop so I'm only showing one side that's lying? Sorry, Jim, but I just can't see any moral difference between editing the situation with framing on my camera and editing the scene with Photoshop.

So anything goes then?  This should not degenerate into a philosophical debate about the nature of truth.  We need practical guidelines as to what is acceptable in manipulating photographs to be used in presenting news stories.  We all know how pictures can be used to mislead the viewer - nothing new there.  But you can't sit on the fence and say that because a photographer can be selective in what he shows then why does it matter how much fabrication is involved post-capture.
I can see that there might be a debate about what level of manipulation is acceptable - but that surely is what the arbiters of these matters are attempting to do.  We are not after all talking about cropping, adjusting levels, colour etc.  We are talking removing things from the image.  As soon as that takes place who decides how much can be removed?

Some of the decisions might seem harsh to a layman (not meaning you), but a stand has to be taken or the whole profession of journalism will become a joke.

Jim

[RSL]

Jim, Have you ever pondered the pictures you see of presidents? With the current president, if you're a liberal press photog you'll make sure your pictures show the best side of that face with a pleasing expression. If you're a conservative press photog you'll make sure your pictures show the worst side of that face with a sour expression. With his predecessor it was just the opposite. Go ahead, tell me that that kind of selective reporting is worse than, say, removing Trotsky from early pictures of the Bolsheviks. Most photojournalists start with a story in mind and go out to tell that story, even if it's the worst kind of BS.

No, I wouldn't say "anything goes." I'd say "everything goes," and there's not a damned thing you or any committee can do about it. So relax, lie back, and let the BS fly. If you've got a reasonably adult BS detector you'll see through the lies without any trouble. If not, and unfortunately "not" seems to apply to the vast majority on the left, you'll make terrible mistakes on the basis of that "guidance."

Most people aren't much interested in politics. What they fail to take into account is that politics always is interested in them.

[jjj]

So anything goes then?  This should not degenerate into a philosophical debate about the nature of truth.  We need practical guidelines as to what is acceptable in manipulating photographs to be used in presenting news stories.  We all know how pictures can be used to mislead the viewer - nothing new there.  But you can't sit on the fence and say that because a photographer can be selective in what he shows then why does it matter how much fabrication is involved post-capture.
I can see that there might be a debate about what level of manipulation is acceptable - but that surely is what the arbiters of these matters are attempting to do.  We are not after all talking about cropping, adjusting levels, colour etc.  We are talking removing things from the image.  As soon as that takes place who decides how much can be removed?

Some of the decisions might seem harsh to a layman (not meaning you), but a stand has to be taken or the whole profession of journalism will become a joke.

I think what one has to realise is that the demonising of post processing is fundamentally missing the point. The camera never lies is the biggest lie of them all.
Post processing is the new bogeyman with stipulations about what is and isn't allowed being ridiculous as so many of the 'alterations' could be achieved in camera. The processed look can be from a slide film,  HDR is not allowed, yet using fill flash for subject and base exposing for the bright sky is fine, yet basically does exactly the same thing. It reduces apparent dynamic range.
Basically it seems that doing something that results in an identical image is forbidden, if it is done after shutter is pressed. That's the logic of very stupid people yet is widely accepted - maybe there's a corollary there.  

[Ben Rubinstein]

I'm not too sure Rob what all this has to do with whether photo-journos should be allowed to digitally fake their pictures or not.  But you may be outdated about the BBC political bids.  They have just been censured over being too right-leaning in fact.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/opinion/extract-how-the-bbc-leans-to-the-right-9129608.html

Jim

By the Independant, that bastion of objective non left thinking

Sorry but for as long as the press has a clear political agenda they should be discounted and ignored. Which ever way they lean. Reportage which isn't objective is, albeit light, propaganda. Just because it's the press moguls and their sponsers selling the propaganda and not a government does not make it any more trustworthy.

[jjj]

By the Independant, that bastion of objective non left thinking

It not being a right wing paper does not make it left wing. I used to read it regularly and liked it as it was pretty non-partisan with views from varying political spectrums. It was called the Independent for a reason.
Sadly with all the other papers poaching its best writers/columns/cartoonists and no money to replace them, it's not as good as it used to be.

[Isaac]

any moral difference between editing the situation with framing on my camera and editing the scene with Photoshop.

omission versus comission

both situations are commission.

What you chose to describe as "editing the situation with framing on my camera" may not be "editing the situation" but simply the inevitable consequence of making an image -- omission

In contrast, "editing the scene with Photoshop" is always "editing" -- commision.

[RSL]

You probably wouldn't know this, Isaac, since you obviously don't do photography, but every time you make a picture you're editing.

[jjj]

You probably wouldn't know this, Isaac, since you obviously don't do photography, but every time you make a picture you're editing.

Ha, ha.
That's a particularly fine piece of hair splitting, even by Isaac's exacting standards.
Though it seems that editing before pushing shutter seems to be OK. It's only the editing afterwards that is evil.