Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Isaac on February 15, 2014, 12:10:15 pm
-
http://www.bjp-online.com/2014/02/eight-percent-of-final-world-press-photo-entries-were-manipulated-and-disqualified-say-judges/
-
This is shocking. I'm shocked. :o ::)
-
" ...should make it clear what’s acceptable and what isn’t. "
That's the trouble with these claims: we don't appear to be able to see the altered images and judge for ourselves whether or not any significant difference in meaning was 'created'.
Rob C
-
" ...should make it clear what’s acceptable and what isn’t. "
That's the trouble with these claims: we don't appear to be able to see the altered images and judge for ourselves whether or not any significant difference in meaning was 'created'.
And worse yet, the article mentions "Following a controversial win last year, World Press Photo instituted new rules relating to post-processing in award-winning images."
So, what were these new rules to begin with? Only then can we say if they were violated, no?
This is what the World Press Photo Organisation has to say:
CONTEST SET UP (http://www.worldpressphoto.org/content/2014-world-press-photo-contest-set)
To establish to what degree pictures have been enhanced in post-processing, we have tightened our protocols and will provide the jury members with expert advice to aid their decision making.
I'd say that's vague at best, if no clearer guidelines are given to the contestants.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The photos were MANIPULATED? Heaven forfend! I agree that the guidelines are pretty fuzzy. Every photograph is "manipulated." If you're shooting raw you decide how much sharpening, tone curve extension, color balancing, etc., you're going to apply. If you're shooting jpeg the camera manufacturer makes those decisions. In both cases the photograph gets "manipulated." I think what these guys really mean is that the rejected photographs were faked! In other words, their meaning was changed. That is, and should be, a no-no in a press photograph.
-
Imagine if this had happened back in film days.
"Your image has been disqualified because the experts have determined that your film was not developed at precisely the time, dilution, and temperature recommended by Kodak."
Or, worse yet:
"Your image has been disqualified because the experts have determined that your film has been developed and fixed, which is clearly a form of post-processing."
Ridiculous!
-
I agree with those that claim the rules have to be specific, otherwise the disqualification is subject to the jury's discretion.
What about lens optic corrections? Cropping? Tone mapping? There's a lot you can do with the current cameras dynamic range. For instance last year's image was disqualified because of excesive tone mapping, apparently using single capture HDR techniques, changing the natural balance of lights and shadows. Content was not altered and IMO the meaning was not changed either.
Consider the iconic photo "Migrant Mother" by Dorothea Lange, It was found that the image has been "altered" by retouching a thumb in the lower right region. If this image were submitted today to this contest it would propably be disqualified (check the disqualification reason for the Stepan Rudik's photo). Did the manipulation change the meaning? I think not
Regards
Edit: correction - last year's image was subject to controversy but was not disqualified
-
Consider the iconic photo "Migrant Mother" by Dorothea Lange...
Consider that a photograph made by FSA photographer Arthur Rothstein was denounced at the time as “a real example of fakery” (http://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/journal/past-issues/issue-1/the-fsa-photographs-information-or-propaganda/).
-
Thanks for that link Isaac, very interesting.
-
+1
-
The photos were MANIPULATED? Heaven forfend! I agree that the guidelines are pretty fuzzy. Every photograph is "manipulated." If you're shooting raw you decide how much sharpening, tone curve extension, color balancing, etc., you're going to apply. If you're shooting jpeg the camera manufacturer makes those decisions. In both cases the photograph gets "manipulated." I think what these guys really mean is that the rejected photographs were faked! In other words, their meaning was changed. That is, and should be, a no-no in a press photograph.
Developing from raw and adjusting WB, exposure, contrast etc are NOT manipulation.
Adding or removing elements are, esp with a competition like this (photo journalism) where it's deemed unethical. People need to understand the difference between corrective/enhancement processing and manipulation.
I don't add or remove elements to my landscape shots, because I've learnt trying to make the perfect picture is unnecessary and fairly pointless.
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2013/12/world-press-photo-contest-overhauls-editing-rules-following-scandal
Rules are quite clear no adding or removing elements
Here is an example of manipulation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oryOqeZEruU
-
This isn't a Photo Art contest. Rather it's the World Press contest that deals with photojournalism. And truth. Adjusting colors, contrast, is allowed as is spotting out dust (if film) but not removing elements or adding them is standard practice with all reputable news sources. Why would you believe the story if the associate pictures was phonied up? It's a very sensitive subject to the news industry.
I'm reminded though of Weegee, a famous news photographer who shot with a press camera decades ago. He followed the cops around and would often get crime scene pictures and all other kinds of mayhem in NYC, often beating the police to the scene. There was one famous one of a Mafiosa shot dead in the streets with blood on the sidewalk. To liven up the shot, he stuck a cigar into the victim's mouth before he took the shot. I suppose the picture wasn't phonied, but the intent was. What a guy!
-
Developing from raw and adjusting WB, exposure, contrast etc are NOT manipulation.
No kidding? What would you call it? Yes, those things are not misrepresentation, but they're definitely manipulation.
I don't add or remove elements to my landscape shots. . .
I'm certainly glad to hear that. Peddling fake landscape would be a criminal offense.
-
I'm reminded though of Weegee, a famous news photographer who shot with a press camera decades ago. He followed the cops around and would often get crime scene pictures and all other kinds of mayhem in NYC, often beating the police to the scene. There was one famous one of a Mafiosa shot dead in the streets with blood on the sidewalk. To liven up the shot, he stuck a cigar into the victim's mouth before he took the shot. I suppose the picture wasn't phonied, but the intent was. What a guy!
Quite true, Alan. But I'm also reminded of Gene Smith and his picture of Schweitzer that included dubbed-in tools, and his picture of Tomoko in which the atmosphere was changed completely in post-processing. The Schweitzer picture is an out and out fake, and the Tomoko picture carries what otherwise would be legitimate manipulation far beyond legitimacy. I don't really have a problem with either one. They're both wonderful works of art, but both of these pictures were put forth as reportage. Let's face it, reportage often goes beyond simply reporting the facts and into propaganda.
Where would you stand on these pictures
-
Photos are often used for propoganda. Sometimes the picture is legitimate, but the written explanation of what it means is BS. I'm reminded of the recent photo you see on TV showing a polar bear swimming between ice flows. The caption describes how global warming is killing off the bears because the ice is melting away. Leaving aside the arguments for and against global warming, the shot though was just a normal picture of late summer conditions, when the arctic ice breaks up as it's been doing for millenia and polar bears are always in the water swimming from flow to flow.
I'm not familiar with the pictures you mentioned. But false reportage, written or photographic where the intent is changed, is different than hanging a picture on the wall for aesthetic or artistic reasons. Don't you agree?
-
Smith's pictures were a bit different from what we usually think of as propaganda. The Schweitzer picture, which you can see at http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/smith/smith_schweitzer_full.html, was run as part of a story in Life magazine praising Schweitzer's work. The story was legitimate, but the tools in the lower right part of this picture were dubbed in to increase the drama.
The Tomoko picture, which you can see at http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/smith/smith_minamata_full.html. accompanied a story in Life about mercury poisoning in the village of Minamata in Japan by a local manufacturer. The story was legit, in fact it was so legit that Gene and his wife were attacked by a gang of plant employees while he was doing the series. But the picture of Tomoko, as it came out of the camera, was very routine compared with the product of extensive darkroom work which added a great deal of dread to the thing.
-
And your point is?
-
No kidding? What would you call it? Yes, those things are not misrepresentation, but they're definitely manipulation.
I'm certainly glad to hear that. Peddling fake landscape would be a criminal offense.
No they're not
Manipulation means to falsify, that is adding or removing elements to create something else. By your definition using Velvia or punching up the in camera jpegs is manipulation.
Few would agree
As for landscapes it's a personal choice. We all make personal choices in our work.
I'm not out to distort things, thus I don't take rocks out..I actually use my legs to find a suitable angle
And I don't put skies in from other shots, I bother to wait until I get the sky I like or want.
Sitting on a pc trying to tart up images with other images isn't my idea of photography.
Anyway, the point on this topic is purely from a PJ angle, and that it is not acceptable to modify or deceive.
IF you want to distort things and go uber PP, then enter a digital art competition
-
And your point is?
My point, Alan, is a question: The Smith photographs were, under the rules of this contest, manipulated. At the same time they were legitimate reportage, "enhanced" reportage. Should the rules of reportage reject this kind of manipulation? I don't have an answer myself.
-
The Associated Press AP just removed pictures of Castro from their archives because the Cuban government removed his hearing aid from the photos before releasing them. It really isn't hard to figure out what manipulation is.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/fidel-castro-photo-handouts-from-cuban-government-manipulated-to-remove-hearing-aid-9121200.html
Here's a description of AP photo policy taken from the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism blog.
There's also an interesting Ethical list of requirements that go beyond the photo itself. (Not printed below-see the full link.
http://photo.journalism.cuny.edu/photo-filing-and-ethics-guidelines/
ASSOCIATED PRESS
The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable.
Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction (analogous to the burning and dodging often used in darkroom processing of images) and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning.
When an employee has questions about the use of such methods or the AP’s requirements and limitations on photo editing, he or she should contact a senior photo editor prior to the transmission of any image.
-
Thanks Alan. Interesting stuff. Apparently Life magazine didn't subscribe to these criteria.
-
Life's out of business.
-
Maybe that's why.
-
That was my point.
-
Perhaps we might now hang up our swords and select a more appropriate instrument?
;-)
Rob C
-
Sounds fine with me. It's a new day! The sun is shining. Great day to take pictures.
-
But to finish the argument: I'm not sure criteria this stiff make sense. I can certainly agree that no photojournalist should make adjustments that change the meaning of his subject, but let's face it, when you frame a picture you're already "manipulating" the target by cropping. As we all know, that alone can change the whole meaning of the scene. The thing that strikes me about the two Gene Smith photographs I mentioned is that what Gene did was make the photographs represent what he saw, not what the camera with its dumb brain saw. This, to him, was the meaning of what was in front of him, and I suggest that the camera is an imperfect enough tool that sometimes the kind of manipulation Gene did makes sense.
-
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.
Come on. We all know when we're telling the truth or not or when we're deceiving someone by altering our photographs. Trying to finesse concepts and words aren't going to get it.
-
Really? Was Gene Smith telling the truth in those photos?
-
Really? Was Gene Smith telling the truth in those photos?
You answered your own question in your earlier post Reply #13 on: February 16, 2014, 09:27:41 AM, quote: "...The Schweitzer picture is an out and out fake, and the Tomoko picture carries what otherwise would be legitimate manipulation far beyond legitimacy..."
Why are you asking me if it was the truth?
-
Okay. I agree. But nobody seemed to be arguing the other side. Gene Smith did some wonderful work. My favorite was Country Doctor. But Schweitzer and Minamata were propaganda.
-
Well let's say that Schweitzer was really a pervert who used underaged girls while he was in Africa. So along comes a photographer who tries to show what a great guy he was by phoneying-up photos to make him look like a saint. He adds tools to the photo that Schweitzer never used and who knows what untrue things in the pictures. But really Schweitzer was just a dirty old man. But Smith had a better chance to get his photos published by dressing them up and neglecting to tell the true story.
The point is once you go down the slope of misrepresentation, all bets are off. I don't know much about the other photo but how can you trust the story surrending that photo anymore knowing that Smith adulterated his photos to propogandize a point or to make his photos more news worthy so he can gather acclaim and money for his work? That makes Smith a phoney too and one ligitimately can question his entire career's work. What's real and what isn't?
-
I cannot see there is really any grey area here. Apart from cloning out dust spots etc, nothing else may be added or removed - no matter how trivial. And the reason for that last part is that once you allow the photographer to use their discretion in what they can and cannot remove/add post capture, then anything will go. Who will make the judgement? Perhaps that small item in the corner does have some significant meaning that the photographer does not want to show.
Of course the photographer can be selective in their viewpoint amongst other controls at the time of capture, and that is a tool to tell the story from the angle they desire - and left to their own integrity. But we all know how powerful the digital tools are at our fingertips, and that ease of manipulation has to be tightly controlled. I really think it is very clear and a bit like banned substances in sport, photographers have to know there is a zero tolerance.
Just because some of the 'greats' from the past set up pictures or faked them is no reason to allow it to continue with the greater ease now available.
Jim
-
I'd agree with you Jim, except it's quite easy for a reporter with a camera to report just what he wants to report. Every time he frames a picture he's making judgments, and often those judgments are biased. Even the reporters choice of subjects very often is biased. So I can't get too bent out of shape about things like Gene Smith's Minamata. Did that plant actually cause Tomoko's problems? We'll probably never know for sure, but Tomoko in her bath made a heart-wrenching picture, and boosted the beliefs of people who agreed with Smith's and Life's political viewpoint. All you need to produce "unbiased" pictures that are nothing of the sort is the right environment and perhaps a long lens. You don't really need to "manipulate" those pictures in post-processing. I will concede Alan's point on Schweitzer and the stupid tools. Schweitzer was a long way from the saint Life made him out to be. But even without the photo manipulation the story was very much "manipulated."
-
I'd agree with you Jim, except it's quite easy for a reporter with a camera to report just what he wants to report. Every time he frames a picture he's making judgments, and often those judgments are biased. Even the reporters choice of subjects very often is biased. So I can't get too bent out of shape about things like Gene Smith's Minamata. Did that plant actually cause Tomoko's problems? We'll probably never know for sure, but Tomoko in her bath made a heart-wrenching picture, and boosted the beliefs of people who agreed with Smith's and Life's political viewpoint. All you need to produce "unbiased" pictures that are nothing of the sort is the right environment and perhaps a long lens. You don't really need to "manipulate" those pictures in post-processing. I will concede Alan's point on Schweitzer and the stupid tools. Schweitzer was a long way from the saint Life made him out to be. But even without the photo manipulation the story was very much "manipulated."
Hi Russ
That is why I did say that the photographer can selectively tell whatever story he wants merely by viewpoint. That is similar to a writer/journalist telling only one side of a story. It's when they tell lies it becomes wrong. The viewer or reader always has to bear in mind that the communication is selective (unless they are incredibly blind), but deliberately lying in a story, or manipulating a picture has to be unacceptable. I agree it is an imperfect rule - but essential I think - otherwise where will the line be drawn?
Jim
-
Hi Russ
That is why I did say that the photographer can selectively tell whatever story he wants merely by viewpoint. That is similar to a writer/journalist telling only one side of a story. It's when they tell lies it becomes wrong. The viewer or reader always has to bear in mind that the communication is selective (unless they are incredibly blind), but deliberately lying in a story, or manipulating a picture has to be unacceptable. I agree it is an imperfect rule - but essential I think - otherwise where will the line be drawn?
Jim
When the snapper's hooked?
Rob C
-
Hi Russ
That is why I did say that the photographer can selectively tell whatever story he wants merely by viewpoint. That is similar to a writer/journalist telling only one side of a story. It's when they tell lies it becomes wrong. The viewer or reader always has to bear in mind that the communication is selective (unless they are incredibly blind), but deliberately lying in a story, or manipulating a picture has to be unacceptable. I agree it is an imperfect rule - but essential I think - otherwise where will the line be drawn?
Jim
To a great extent I agree with you Jim, but I remember what went on with photo reportage in Vietnam. The pictures themselves weren't lies, but they were, well, let's be polite and say, "selective." Is that "unacceptable" too? There's no such thing as unbiased reporting, and a reporter doesn't have to depend on Photoshop to shade the truth. You talk about ". . .a writer/journalist telling only one side of a story." And then you say: "It's when they tell lies it becomes wrong." Isn't telling only one side of a story telling lies?
-
Not in the same way Russ - because there can be two sides to a story. By only showing one side you are not necessarily lying - just being selective with what you show/tell. But this is not about absolutes, just placing sensible limits on what is acceptable in news reporting pictures. I think we all understand what we are talking about really. The viewer always knows there is a backside to any picture - but blatantly changing it will just destroy any credibility photo-journalism has. There has to be integrity, and as long as photographers are reminded from time to time that this is non-negotiable we may at least get a majority of images that at least are truthful in what they DO show. Without any control pictures would be purely at the whim of imagination and they whole industry would become meaningless.
Regarding Vietnam - while the conflict ended when I was quite young, I have seen a lot of pictures and have some books such as those by Larry Burrows and Don McCullin etc. Despite the fact a lot of imagery did have an 'angle' either pro war or anti-war, I believe it was one of the last wars where photographers were not censored too much on where they could go. At least both sides of a story could be told. Certainly recent conflicts are only reported by the West in relation to showing what a good job ours boys are doing and how sanitised the whole thing is.
Jim
-
I have to say that I agree with Russ on the matter of telling one side of a story being nothing short of a fib, too.
Of course one doesn't expect any better, because were both (all?) side represented every time, then there would be total confusion at home and nobody would support any government's actions. They already have credibility problems at home on even relatively minor issues.
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. Then Sky News: it is still the main topic on that channel - almost the sole one for days on end - and it's almost with reluctance that the stuff going down in Kiev gets aired at all. Media is a bitch: apart from the Beeb, it is totally finance oriented. Unfortunately, the Beeb is filled with socialists, so that doesn't help too much either. (It's a shame Oxbridge can't breed realists/rationalists too). Funny thing about the champagne socialists there: they all seem perfectly happy to get fired with golden hand-shakes to match and even surpass the splendour of their salaries...
But the States enjoyed the same nonsensical notion and clamour for physical, divine political presence at New Orleans and also the Gulf of Mexico...
So how should the media report? My view is drifting ever faster to this: they should just stay out completely. Let these warring countries fight themselves to a standstill and a clear winner emerge from the slaughter. Then there will be someone with whom to deal, negotiate and run a balanced existence between peace and annihilation. All we have now is a faked, fudged semi-peace that consists of nothing more than backing different sides in order to sell them arms in order that we may purchase fuels and chemicals we need from them. It's a crock of.
Rob C
-
I have to say that I agree with Russ on the matter of telling one side of a story being nothing short of a fib, too.
Of course one doesn't expect any better, because were both (all?) side represented every time, then there would be total confusion at home and nobody would support any government's actions. They already have credibility problems at home on even relatively minor issues.
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. Then Sky News: it is still the main topic on that channel - almost the sole one for days on end - and it's almost with reluctance that the stuff going down in Kiev gets aired at all. Media is a bitch: apart from the Beeb, it is totally finance oriented. Unfortunately, the Beeb is filled with socialists, so that doesn't help too much either. (It's a shame Oxbridge can't breed realists/rationalists too). Funny thing about the champagne socialists there: they all seem perfectly happy to get fired with golden hand-shakes to match and even surpass the splendour of their salaries...
But the States enjoyed the same nonsensical notion and clamour for physical, divine political presence at New Orleans and also the Gulf of Mexico...
So how should the media report? My view is drifting ever faster to this: they should just stay out completely. Let these warring countries fight themselves to a standstill and a clear winner emerge from the slaughter. Then there will be someone with whom to deal, negotiate and run a balanced existence between peace and annihilation. All we have now is a faked, fudged semi-peace that consists of nothing more than backing different sides in order to sell them arms in order that we may purchase fuels and chemicals we need from them. It's a crock of.
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
-
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
-
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.
-
any moral difference between editing the situation with framing on my camera and editing the scene with Photoshop.
omission versus comission
-
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.
-
omission versus comission
Which means what? ???
-
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.
-
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.
-
Maybe not, though, since I have no indication that you've ever framed a picture on a camera.
;D
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
Fair enough, your use of Cnut's name could be taken either way.
-
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
-
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.
-
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. ;D
-
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 :D
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.
-
By the Independant, that bastion of objective non left thinking :D
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.
-
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.
-
You probably wouldn't know this, Isaac, since you obviously don't do photography, but every time you make a picture you're editing.
-
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.
-
every time you make a picture you're editing
Every time we make an image, inevitably we frame an image.
Put your camera on P with a 2 second delay, toss it high in the air, and then explain why we should consider that picture to result from "editing the situation".
-
Put your camera on P with a 2 second delay, toss it high in the air, and then explain why we should consider that picture to result from "editing the situation".
Well some people do actually do pretty much that (http://jonaspfeil.de/ballcamera). Also at times I take photos with out looking through the viewfinder, but I can still get good shots because I understand the situation and how to exploit it.
Your example is meant to imply randomness I do realise that, but we are very obviously not talking about doing that random shooting.
And as an aside, to my mind P is hardly any different from AP or SP which many people choose to use to get great shots.
-
Isaac, if you were to do that the camera or plain randomness would be making the picture, not "you." Any time YOU make a picture, you edit. If you were to go out and try it you might begin to understand.
-
if you were to do that the camera or plain randomness would be making the picture, not "you."
Did the camera leap into the air of its own volition?
Did the camera set itself to delay for 2 seconds before triggering the shutter?
The camera "would be making the picture" only in the same sense that the camera always "would be making the picture" -- shutter opens, light, shutter closes.
-
Did the camera leap into the air of its own volition?
Did the camera set itself to delay for 2 seconds before triggering the shutter?
The camera "would be making the picture" only in the same sense that the camera always "would be making the picture" -- shutter opens, light, shutter closes.
Except you said "Every time we make an image, inevitably we frame an image.' and then suggested your flying camera example. Framing is the thing we would not be doing in that scenario.
-
As I said, Isaac, if you'd get a camera and go out and try it you might begin to understand. It's one of those things you can't understand unless you do it yourself.
-
We could always club together and buy Issac of these, so he could try some photography.
But then, we wouldn't know where to send it.
(http://wpuploads.appadvice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/14306-disposable_1_super.jpg)
-
Even if we knew where to send it would he know how to use it?
-
Of course, he's an expert.
-
As I said, Isaac, if you'd get a camera and go out and try it you might begin to understand. It's one of those things you can't understand unless you do it yourself.
As usual, you resort to distraction because your reason failed.
-
Pretty weak my friend.
-
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. ;D
Right Russ and JJJ! You both bloody well know exactly what I mean.... :) I don't have the time to split hairs with you two because I have work (photographic) to do. I understand precisely the way photography, without manipulation, is used to bend stories and of course I realise the camera can 'lie'. However I know that neither of you would genuinely think that press photographs should just be composited or edited in any way the photographer desires, and that the Press photography awards could be won by a picture which is in some substantial way fabricated. Therefore some guideline is necessary.
Right, back to doing some real photography work - need to airbrush out some wrinkles on a middle aged woman....
Jim
-
Guidelines are indeed necessary Jim, I do not think either Russ or myself would say otherwise. But as I said above, the current ignorant demonising of post capture work is not the way to proceed, as it tends to show lack of knowledge about the entire photographic process.
Personally I want to smack someone around the head with a large technical camera whenever they witter on about an image being 'straight out of camera' and somehow superior. ;D
The amount of uneducated guff and witch hunt hysteria with regard to last year's prizewinner only showed that the Middle Ages thought processes are still here, busy frothing at the mouth.
-
In fact the much, much, much, much bigger problem is however never addressed. The veracity of written reporting.
-
Exactly!
-
As usual, you resort to distraction because your reason failed.
Pretty weak my friend.
I won't try to bully you into sincerity - it isn't worth the candle.
-
Weaker and weaker. Fading away. We need to resurrect Henry Peach Robinson to document this, Isaac.
-
Weaker and weaker. Fading away. We need to resurrect Henry Peach Robinson to document this, Isaac.
;D