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
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
