Photogtaphy Forums

Photography Forums > Photography Newsgroups > Photography Archive > Digital Cameras > Photo manipulation consequences

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

Photo manipulation consequences

 
 
Savageduck
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-05-2012, 09:19 PM
SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are consequences to
photo-manipulation.
<
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/423...ylink=misearch
>


--
Regards,

Savageduck

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Eric Stevens
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-05-2012, 10:00 PM
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.

Regards,

Eric Stevens
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-06-2012, 12:48 AM
On 2/5/2012 4:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are consequences to
> photo-manipulation.
> <
> http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/423...ylink=misearch
>
>>

>


Adverse consequences can be expected when a manipulated image is
submitted as not manipulated.
I have been working on some altered reality images for my monthly club
competition.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-08-2012, 01:29 AM
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?

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank S
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-08-2012, 01:36 AM

"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

--
Frank ess


 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric Stevens
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-08-2012, 01:55 AM
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Savageduck
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-08-2012, 02:24 AM
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.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Pisarra
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-08-2012, 05:25 AM
"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


 
Reply With Quote
 
DaveS
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-08-2012, 02:40 PM
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?

Dave S.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Savageduck
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-08-2012, 02:54 PM
On 2012-02-08 06:40:50 -0800, DaveS <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

> 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?
>
> Dave S.


This guy's problem seems to be adding stuff, not cropping.
I don't believe that adjustments for exposure/contrast/saturation are
an issue, but alterations to content to deliberately mislead the viewer
or even influence the photo editor to choose his image over that of
another photographer.

Remember, cropping is usually the photo editor's job, and he isn't
going to be fired for cropping. However if the image he has to work
with is a fabrication and does not capture the scene as it happened, I
would say that all bets are off.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Law of Unintended Consequences Robert Coe Digital Cameras 36 02-23-2012 04:49 PM
Photo manipulation consequences Savageduck Photography 20 02-11-2012 01:35 AM
The Cat Princess Photo Manipulation Tutorial psd-dude.com Photoshop 11 08-17-2011 04:14 PM
Ethics of photo manipulation PlaneGuy Australia Photography 1 10-04-2004 09:12 AM
photo manipulation query R Photography 4 12-12-2003 12:33 PM