1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Digital manipulation - right or wrong. You decide here.

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, May 6, 2007.

  1. Damien_Demolder

    Damien_Demolder Well-Known Member

    Vote on whether the changes made to this sport picture should be allowed, or whether the photographer deserved to lose his job.

    Go to the features section to vote.

    [​IMG]

    damien
     
  2. robc

    robc Well-Known Member

    Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
    Especially for anyone are calling themselves a"journalist"
     
  3. Dave_Cox

    Dave_Cox Well-Known Member

    For a journalistic shot - wrong as it could alter the viewers interpretation of the story, for everything else it's ok, so long as it's made perfectly clear that the image has been manipulated.
     
  4. parisian

    parisian Well-Known Member

    Given that 90% of all photographs lie to some degree or other then it is difficult to judge. It may not have been the 'truth' but I don't think that he should lose his job. Some documentary snaps really should show the world as it is - warts and all - but this, does it matter that a ball has been added?
    Ask yourself the key question. 'Did anyone die?' no, so move on.
     
  5. Hotblack

    Hotblack Dead Horse Flogger

    Personally,I feel that in sport and journalism images should not be manipulated at all. It degrades any trust (what little there is to start with) between the news provider and the readers.
     
  6. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    I think that you've got that absolutely wrong - maybe :).

    What you say about this particular photo may be correct (may be but not certainly because we don't know the circumstances or to what use the photo will be put).

    However if we condone manipulation of this sort in a news picture then we will have no idea where it will stop - and then, to quote you, maybe someone will die and any photos may be untrustworthy and the whole of photography will become inadmissible for evidence. Exaggerated? Maybe but maybe not.

    By the way this is nothing to do with digital manipulation I'm including all manipulation that "alters the essential truth" of an image. I'm also confining my remarks to record/news/factual images - do what you like with 'art' images.

    There are some famous photos taken in the Soviet Uniion (sorry can't remember details and don't have time to search) where Stalin or Lenin was air-brushed out of a group. No-one died (I think) but a blatant attempt to change the course of history. Unacceptable in my book.

    MickLL

    PS Just discovered that the 'real' ball had smashed into the face of a spectator and this photo is being used to prove that the spectator was lying. :):)

    PPS I just made up the PS as a crazy idea.
     
  7. AGW

    AGW Well-Known Member

    I dont think it should have been done, but I wouldnt have sacked the guy for doing it.
    There are two changes that I can see, the ball and the crop. I have tried to place the ball in the uncroped shot and I dont think it looks natural, the guy knew how to make a good composition....its just that his timing was out!

    Graeme
     
  8. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    IMO (and I've said this previously) any image used to 'show' a factual story, i.e. news, sport, etc., should be untouched, or at least no piggeryjockery.

    If the image is a library shot and merely an 'illustration' for a story then I don't see an issue.
     
  9. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Indeed. Stalin was notorious for airbrushing those who became personae non grata out of history in this way. Trotsky is the most famous example (and he did indeed eventually pay with his life - in the words of our former editor's fave band, "He got an ice pick, That made his ears burn"), but, without checking up, its likely that most or all of those removed from photos by Stalin's order were also removed from the world itself by the same man's decree.
     
  10. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Au contraire. If this man was prepared to deceive on this pretty minor issue, it's possible he might have chosen to do likewise with a picture of something of far greater importance, in order to ensure his picture was published rather than another snapper's (remember, he is alleged to have 'improved' hundreds of his images). Its a question of the guy's character more than the petty offence of adding a ball here.
     
  11. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    I might have fired him. Imagine that you are his editor and next week he comes in with photos of some major event. An assasination maybe or a robbery. Do you accept his pictures at face value? Do you trust him? He's already made one error of judgement and proved himself a cheat by passing off a fake as genuine and however 'harmless' the first one was what confidence do you have that he's not done it again?

    MickLL
     
  12. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    Bother - you beat me to it. :)

    MickLL
     
  13. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    I prefer "great minds..." Mick! ;)
     
  14. Barney

    Barney Well-Known Member

    Ed - "What the blazes were you thinking of?"
    Journo - "Well, I thought it looked better with a ball in the shot."
    Ed - "But it was for the spot the ball competition!"
    Journo - "I'll get my coat."
     
  15. Dorset_Mike

    Dorset_Mike Grumpy Old Fart

    I think the thing is where do you draw the line?
    Digitally altered could include brilliance and contrast, USM, & cropping.
    Cloning out the legs and the wire from the additional examples does no harm in my book, in fact improves the shots for me. Adding the ball makes a somewhat better image, IMO, (you can see what the players are aiming for) and is not crucial to anything.
    Where I would draw the line is maybe adding or subtracting something from the image which could cause controversy over the result of a match, say by making it look as though an infringement of the rules had (or had not) occurred, or maybe showing a ball crossing the line when in fact it did not.
    As it stands, just a storm in a teacup, possibly a bit of sour grapes from the other togs who moaned, he's doing too well, lets drag him down to our level, plus possible "can we sue him" mentality?

    Cheers MIKE
    (retreats to fortified bunker)
     
  16. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    Tim, your recollection is absolutely correct, I rememeber seeing a TV programme about the Soviet Union, where the actual photographer of many of the official May-Day marches was interviewed and stated that he was ordered to oblterate and/or add individuals to the shots taken.

    I think that due to the concerns of image-editing, (In relation to especially news-shots) photographers may have to submit the original RAW image and also the edited/cropped version, so that it's accuracy can be determined (The development of a file format that records internally any editing done? A kind of PressRAW format?)

    Maybe photographic competitions will also evolve so that a category surfaces where an individuals image-editing skills are also incorporated in the judging, by entrants having to send in pre and post edited images. It certainly would as a consequence, make for some very interesting and challenging competitions!
     
  17. Bettina

    Bettina Well-Known Member

    Agree 100%.
     
  18. Mr_Geoff

    Mr_Geoff Well-Known Member

    Yup, I agree too. Off with his pixels! :D
     
  19. parisian

    parisian Well-Known Member

    Sorry folks I just have to keep on disagreeing.
    Look again at the original post from Damien. There is no mention in there of the context in which this was taken or used. There is no hint at all of the snappers background.
    However, whatever his history or the use the photograph was going to be used for I still don't see a problem. It is a ball for goodness sake not a canister of poison gas cloned into the hands of a suspected terrorist.
     
  20. turbulentwheat

    turbulentwheat Well-Known Member

    i agree - wrong wrong wrong
     

Share This Page