«

On 2/7/2012 11:25 PM, Chris Pisarra wrote:
> "Robert Coe" wrote
>
> Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the image"
> mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the
> birds,
> the flowers, and the frog?
>
>
> The rules of the game in photojournalism are simple--no
> Photoshop. period. what you see is what you get. If you break the rules,
> you lose the game. What's so hard to understand?

Its VERY hard to understand! You can't use "Curves"? "Highlight-Shadow"?
Color temperature correction? Lateral CA correction?

Perspective correction for architecturals? (But you can use PC lenses?)

Doug McDonald

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:25:49 -0800, "Chris Pisarra" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: "Robert Coe" wrote
: >
: > Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the image"
: > mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the
: > birds, the flowers, and the frog?
:
: The rules of the game in photojournalism are simple--no Photoshop. period.
: what you see is what you get. If you break the rules, you lose the game.
: What's so hard to understand?

Since you ask, it's how you can say such a thing with a straight face. The
rules, in this case, are whatever the Sacramento Bee says they are. And their
rules contain a vague clause (quoted above) that's open to pretty much
whatever interpretation suits the interpreter. That may be simple to you, but
it's not very simple to me. Does the use of Photoshop sometimes, always, or
never "alter the reality of the image"? Well, yes and/or no. If you think you
can explain it definitively, please feel free to try.

Bob

Bob,

The rules as specified by the Sacramento Bee are the Sac Bee's interpretation of the 'rules' as accepted as recognized in the profession and pretty much taught in photojournalism schools. There are gray areas of interpretation where judgment calls are needed and there are a lot of areas where this is true, law being an example and in the case of photojournalism you hasve stricter and more liberal interpretations of standards as set by the editorial staff, but you can definitely identify when things are out of bounds.

In this case, having started off in photojournalism and learning the craft in a newspaper environment, it's pretty clear that this photographer knowingly and consciously broke the rules and a claim that the rules were so ambiguous that he, as a long time staffer for the paper, could interpret them freely isn't tennable. If nothing else, after a time, you absorb and understand what is and what is not acceptable for the paper you are working for and that paper has those rules so that that their credibility is secure.

The photographer lost his job because he knowingly broke the rules that anyexperienced photojournalist working for a specific paper would be expectedto know and did it more than once.

I can't marshall any sympathy for him and I haven't seen any arguments fromwithin the profession in his support. Admittedly, I'm not following the story closely and they may be out there.

The question isn't whether photoshop always, sometimes, or never alters 'reality', the photographer with the simple choice of framing and subject, starts that process and photography itself, as a process and technology buildson that. As you correctly point out, the answer to whether photoshop alters reality is yes and/or no, but whether it is meaningfully yes, no, or both, depends on the context and the standards that come with that context.

This is an area where a definitive explanation would be a lot of examples of what is acceptable are compared with what is not, along with an explanation of why that is the case and any resulting understanding comes from how well that generalizes to other cases.

Vance

On 2012-02-07 18:24:43 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:

> On 2012-02-07 17:55:15 -0800, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 17:36:25 -0800, "Frank S" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:00:05 +1300, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> : On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:19:01 -0800, Savageduck
>>>> : <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>> :
>>>> : >SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are consequences to
>>>> : >photo-manipulation.
>>>> : ><
>>>> :
>>>>> http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/423...ylink=misearch
>>>> : >>
>>>> :
>>>> : "To maintain the credibility of The Sacramento Bee, documentary
>>>> : photographs will not be manipulated in any way that alters the
>>>> : reality of the image."
>>>> :
>>>> : In other words, what you see is what he got.
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the
>>>> image"
>>>> mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the
>>>> birds,
>>>> the flowers, and the frog?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> At some level there is no "reality"; at one a little closer to What You See
>>> Is All There Is, is
>>> http://www.creativepro.com/article/a...re-manipulated
>>
>> I doubt if that level of reality changing is what the editor of the
>> Sacramento Bee was objecting to. But putting in an Egret, or
>> Sunflowers that weren't originally there could be expected to raise
>> the editor's ire. So too could increasing the size of the flames in a
>> fire.
>>
>> Clearly the editor wants the photographs to depict what was there at
>> the time and producing something that was literally a figment of the
>> photographer's imagination doesn't fit that bill.
>>
>> There have been other similarly altered news photographs. I recall the
>> photograph of the launch of a number of Iranian intermediate range
>> missiles in which the trails of two which failed were edited out and
>> replaced by grafted in trails from other successful rockets. I know
>> there have been other similar examples.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eric Stevens
>
> Exactly. This was more than the issue of the egret and the frog.
> It seems that Bryan Patrick has engaged in alteration of images over
> several years, in direct violation of the Sacramento Bee's policies. It
> seems that the egret shot was just the final straw and embarrassment
> for the SacBee. He knew the requirements needed of photographs to be
> used in that newspaper, and the various competitions he entered. He
> chose to be devious and to cheat. There is a big difference between
> making exposure/saturation/contrast adjustments and changing the
> elements of the captured scene and the relationship of subject animals,
> individuals, or magnitude of physical phenomena such as flames.
>
> It is also worth noting that along with being fired, he was stripped of
> several professional level prizes and awards.

Here is some more, and it is worth noting that this goes beyond the SacBee;
<
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...ick-alter.html
>
< http://www.sfbappa.org/ >


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-02-08 21:12:18 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:

> On 2012-02-07 18:24:43 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>
>> On 2012-02-07 17:55:15 -0800, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>
>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 17:36:25 -0800, "Frank S" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:00:05 +1300, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> : On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:19:01 -0800, Savageduck
>>>>> : <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>> :
>>>>> : >SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are consequences to
>>>>> : >photo-manipulation.
>>>>> : ><
>>>>> :
>>>>>> http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/423...ylink=misearch
>>>>> : >>
>>>>> :
>>>>> : "To maintain the credibility of The Sacramento Bee, documentary
>>>>> : photographs will not be manipulated in any way that alters the
>>>>> : reality of the image."
>>>>> :
>>>>> : In other words, what you see is what he got.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the
>>>>> image"
>>>>> mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the
>>>>> birds,
>>>>> the flowers, and the frog?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At some level there is no "reality"; at one a little closer to What You See
>>>> Is All There Is, is
>>>> http://www.creativepro.com/article/a...re-manipulated
>>>
>>> I doubt if that level of reality changing is what the editor of the
>>> Sacramento Bee was objecting to. But putting in an Egret, or
>>> Sunflowers that weren't originally there could be expected to raise
>>> the editor's ire. So too could increasing the size of the flames in a
>>> fire.
>>>
>>> Clearly the editor wants the photographs to depict what was there at
>>> the time and producing something that was literally a figment of the
>>> photographer's imagination doesn't fit that bill.
>>>
>>> There have been other similarly altered news photographs. I recall the
>>> photograph of the launch of a number of Iranian intermediate range
>>> missiles in which the trails of two which failed were edited out and
>>> replaced by grafted in trails from other successful rockets. I know
>>> there have been other similar examples.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Eric Stevens
>>
>> Exactly. This was more than the issue of the egret and the frog.
>> It seems that Bryan Patrick has engaged in alteration of images over
>> several years, in direct violation of the Sacramento Bee's policies. It
>> seems that the egret shot was just the final straw and embarrassment
>> for the SacBee. He knew the requirements needed of photographs to be
>> used in that newspaper, and the various competitions he entered. He
>> chose to be devious and to cheat. There is a big difference between
>> making exposure/saturation/contrast adjustments and changing the
>> elements of the captured scene and the relationship of subject animals,
>> individuals, or magnitude of physical phenomena such as flames.
>>
>> It is also worth noting that along with being fired, he was stripped of
>> several professional level prizes and awards.
>
> Here is some more, and it is worth noting that this goes beyond the SacBee;
> <
> http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...ick-alter.html

<
>
> http://www.sfbappa.org/ >

....and a little more;
< http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/...2/patrick.html >


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Frank S wrote:

>
> At some level there is no "reality"; at one a little closer to What You See
> Is All There Is, is
> http://www.creativepro.com/article/a...re-manipulated

Thanks for posting this link! It's a very straight-foward explanation of
common issues that photographers face with post-processing that I don't
think the general public is aware of. Good reading!

-Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:<a href="http://bit.ly"...p://bit.ly</a>/aMH6Qd

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, DaveS wrote:

> On 2/7/2012 11:25 PM, Chris Pisarra wrote:
>> "Robert Coe" wrote
>>
>> Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the image"
>> mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the
>> birds,
>> the flowers, and the frog?
>>
>>
>> The rules of the game in photojournalism are
>> simple--no
>> Photoshop. period. what you see is what you get. If you break the rules,
>> you lose the game. What's so hard to understand?
>>
>> Chris
>
> Really? No cropping?

Heh, exactly. The rules are most certainly NOT 'not photoshop'.
Photoshop is a standard program given to photojournalists. It's what's
done within Photoshop that is restricted, and the restrictions depend on
the publication and their own ethical guidelines.

--
-Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:<a href="http://bit.ly"...p://bit.ly</a>/aMH6Qd

On 2/9/2012 12:12 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-02-07 18:24:43 -0800, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>
>> On 2012-02-07 17:55:15 -0800, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>
>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 17:36:25 -0800, "Frank S" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:00:05 +1300, Eric Stevens
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> : On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:19:01 -0800, Savageduck
>>>>> : <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>> :
>>>>> : >SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are
>>>>> consequences to
>>>>> : >photo-manipulation.
>>>>> : ><
>>>>> :
>>>>>> http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/423...ylink=misearch
>>>>>>
>>>>> : >>
>>>>> :
>>>>> : "To maintain the credibility of The Sacramento Bee, documentary
>>>>> : photographs will not be manipulated in any way that alters the
>>>>> : reality of the image."
>>>>> :
>>>>> : In other words, what you see is what he got.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the
>>>>> image"
>>>>> mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of
>>>>> the
>>>>> birds,
>>>>> the flowers, and the frog?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At some level there is no "reality"; at one a little closer to What
>>>> You See
>>>> Is All There Is, is
>>>> http://www.creativepro.com/article/a...re-manipulated
>>>
>>> I doubt if that level of reality changing is what the editor of the
>>> Sacramento Bee was objecting to. But putting in an Egret, or
>>> Sunflowers that weren't originally there could be expected to raise
>>> the editor's ire. So too could increasing the size of the flames in a
>>> fire.
>>>
>>> Clearly the editor wants the photographs to depict what was there at
>>> the time and producing something that was literally a figment of the
>>> photographer's imagination doesn't fit that bill.
>>>
>>> There have been other similarly altered news photographs. I recall the
>>> photograph of the launch of a number of Iranian intermediate range
>>> missiles in which the trails of two which failed were edited out and
>>> replaced by grafted in trails from other successful rockets. I know
>>> there have been other similar examples.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Eric Stevens
>>
>> Exactly. This was more than the issue of the egret and the frog.
>> It seems that Bryan Patrick has engaged in alteration of images over
>> several years, in direct violation of the Sacramento Bee's policies.
>> It seems that the egret shot was just the final straw and
>> embarrassment for the SacBee. He knew the requirements needed of
>> photographs to be used in that newspaper, and the various competitions
>> he entered. He chose to be devious and to cheat. There is a big
>> difference between making exposure/saturation/contrast adjustments and
>> changing the elements of the captured scene and the relationship of
>> subject animals, individuals, or magnitude of physical phenomena such
>> as flames.
>>
>> It is also worth noting that along with being fired, he was stripped
>> of several professional level prizes and awards.
>
> Here is some more, and it is worth noting that this goes beyond the SacBee;
> <
> http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...ick-alter.html
>
>>
> < http://www.sfbappa.org/ >

To my way of thinking the photographer has an obligation to stick within
the rules of his employer or the competition organizer. Placing an
object in the image that was not originally there is clearly
manipulation. It may be allowable in some venues, but not in others.
If a news photographer alters the image so that it is not a fair
representation of the scene he shot, it would be no different than a
print reporter writing that he saw the Duck and I climbing a mountain
and talking about our struggles.


--
Peter

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:57:48 -0800 (PST), Vance <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Bob,
:
: The rules as specified by the Sacramento Bee are the Sac Bee's interpretation of the 'rules' as accepted as recognized in the profession and pretty much taught in photojournalism schools. There are gray areas of interpretation where judgment calls are needed and there are a lot of areas where this is true, law being an example and in the case of photojournalism you hasve stricter and more liberal interpretations of standards as set by the editorial staff, but you can definitely identify when things are out of bounds.
:
: In this case, having started off in photojournalism and learning the craft in a newspaper environment, it's pretty clear that this photographer knowingly and consciously broke the rules and a claim that the rules were so ambiguous that he, as a long time staffer for the paper, could interpret them freely isn't tennable. If nothing else, after a time, you absorb and understand what is and what is not acceptable for the paper you are working for and that paper has those rules so that that their credibility is secure.
:
: The photographer lost his job because he knowingly broke the rules that any experienced photojournalist working for a specific paper would be expected to know and did it more than once.
:
: I can't marshall any sympathy for him and I haven't seen any arguments from within the profession in his support. Admittedly, I'm not following the story closely and they may be out there.
:
: The question isn't whether photoshop always, sometimes, or never alters 'reality', the photographer with the simple choice of framing and subject, starts that process and photography itself, as a process and technology builds on that. As you correctly point out, the answer to whether photoshop alters reality is yes and/or no, but whether it is meaningfully yes, no, or both, depends on the context and the standards that come with that context.
:
: This is an area where a definitive explanation would be a lot of examples of what is acceptable are compared with what is not, along with an explanation of why that is the case and any resulting understanding comes from how well that generalizes to other cases.

Good explanation. I think you describe the situation about as well as it can
be described. And you're undoubtedly correct that there's a gray area that
everyone comes to understand. But when a photographer's career is at stake, it
would be nice (although possibly unrealistic) if the implied "bright line"
down the middle (or some other part) of that gray area could be made clearer.

In my stock photos of our city is one of the famous buildings of a local
university. Not intruding on the building, but in the way nevertheless, was a
large, ugly traffic light pole. So I zapped it. If that picture ever appears
on our Web site (or on the side of a City truck), I don't think I'll get in
trouble if somebody misses that pole. But then I'm not a photojournalist. I'm
thinking maybe that's just as well.

Bob

Thanks, Bob. I was hoping not to muddy things up.

I started off shooting for a local newspaper as a teenager and then
shot as an API stringer (the bottom of the photojournalistic food
chain) and still I maintane valid press credentials. Things were
definitely drummed into me as I learned the profession and it is hard
to explain to someone on the outside, even another photographer,
what's going on when the standards have been violated.

My sense and the sense I get from the comments by others from the
photojournalism world is that the profession has been diminished and
we (as photojournalists) have had our credibility attacked on a
personal level. This is an established, award winning member of the
profession and should be an example of us at our best. When someone
like that fails, it hurts a lot.

Vance

On Feb 9, 4:01*pm, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:57:48 -0800 (PST), Vance <Vance.L...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Bob,
> :
> : The rules as specified by the Sacramento Bee are the Sac Bee's interpretation of the 'rules' as accepted as recognized in the profession and pretty much taught in photojournalism schools. *There are gray areas of interpretation where judgment calls are needed and there are a lot of areas wherethis is true, law being an example and in the case of photojournalism you hasve stricter and more liberal interpretations of standards as set by the editorial staff, but you can definitely identify when things are out of bounds.
> :
> : In this case, having started off in photojournalism and learning the craft in a newspaper environment, it's pretty clear that this photographer knowingly and consciously broke the rules and a claim that the rules were so ambiguous that he, as a long time staffer for the paper, could interpret them freely isn't tennable. *If nothing else, after a time, you absorb and understand what is and what is not acceptable for the paper you are workingfor and that paper has those rules so that that their credibility is secure.
> :
> : The photographer lost his job because he knowingly broke the rules thatany experienced photojournalist working for a specific paper would be expected to know and did it more than once.
> :
> : I can't marshall any sympathy for him and I haven't seen any arguments from within the profession in his support. *Admittedly, I'm not followingthe story closely and they may be out there.
> :
> : The question isn't whether photoshop always, sometimes, or never alters'reality', the photographer with the simple choice of framing and subject,starts that process and photography itself, as a process and technology builds on that. *As you correctly point out, the answer to whether photoshop alters reality is yes and/or no, but whether it is meaningfully yes, no, or both, depends on the context and the standards that come with that context.
> :
> : This is an area where a definitive explanation would be a lot of examples of what is acceptable are compared with what is not, along with an explanation of why that is the case and any resulting understanding comes from how well that generalizes to other cases.
>
> Good explanation. I think you describe the situation about as well as it can
> be described. And you're undoubtedly correct that there's a gray area that
> everyone comes to understand. But when a photographer's career is at stake, it
> would be nice (although possibly unrealistic) if the implied "bright line"
> down the middle (or some other part) of that gray area could be made clearer.
>
> In my stock photos of our city is one of the famous buildings of a local
> university. Not intruding on the building, but in the way nevertheless, was a
> large, ugly traffic light pole. So I zapped it. If that picture ever appears
> on our Web site (or on the side of a City truck), I don't think I'll get in
> trouble if somebody misses that pole. But then I'm not a photojournalist.I'm
> thinking maybe that's just as well.
>
> Bob