Reuters drops Beirut photographer

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Celcius, Aug 8, 2006.

  1. Celcius

    Celcius Guest

    Celcius, Aug 8, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Celcius

    Mike Guest

    Reuters (and most reputable agencies) have a strict policy about this type
    of thing and he's not the first to be caught out and fired. Won't be the
    last either. What makes this case interesting to me, is the absolute botch
    he made of the Photoshopping. It stands out like a sore thumb. I also
    question why he felt the need to try and make the smoke more dramatic -
    there are loads of similar photos available from Lebanon (sad but true), so
    it's not as if he'd be able to create a unique image which would sail into
    Mike, Aug 8, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Celcius

    Celcius Guest

    I've seen photos from Beirut where in the complete devastation of a
    building, one could see children's toys lined up. I remember one with a
    teddy bear. I'm wondering if these have been set up before the photograph
    was taken. If this is so, to me at least, it's the same as photoshopping a
    picture. It's setting up the photo for dramatisation purposes. Don't you
    Celcius, Aug 8, 2006
  4. Celcius

    Paul Heslop Guest

    It certainly is, but harder to prove. the image of smoke was obviously
    redone, he says it was dusty I say his image had even had more smoke
    added. Pity, as it doesn't need any trickery to show that the country
    is being pummelled by war machines.
    Paul Heslop, Aug 8, 2006
  5. Celcius bedacht in
    There are two things at issue here. The first is the arranging of
    photographs, with people posing (the infamous 'green helmet' for
    instance) and the careful selection of viewpoints etc. This may be
    acceptable for purposes of illustration or highlighting certain points in
    a news report. But this is, in my opinion, totally unacceptable in
    photojournalism, i.e. the reporting of a story (solely) through
    The other thing is the doctoring of photographs. That is totally
    unacceptable in reporting. (period)

    Justus Lipsius, Aug 8, 2006
  6. Gerrit 't Hart, Aug 8, 2006
  7. Celcius

    Celcius Guest

    You know Gerrit, I never questioned photos before today.
    I never thought that people would go to this extent to "make a point"
    Of course, come to think of it, one can photograph / film what you want to
    make a point... one can even "arrange" the scenery... I must be very honest
    or dumb.
    Celcius, Aug 8, 2006
  8. Celcius

    Mike Guest

    Hi Marcel,
    I would agree that arranging the contents of the shot before taking a
    picture would be a similar thing (ie. the image would not be a true
    representation of what the photojournalist actually saw), and yes, it most
    definitely does go on. Reputable agencies frown upon this as much as they do
    on photoshopping.

    I think the issue here is trust - agencies are nothing if they do not have
    the trust and confidence of their customers. If customers (ie. news outlets)
    feel an agency is putting out digitally altered or "rearranged" images then
    they will not trust that agency.

    Since the arrival of digital manipulation, good agencies have (rightly)
    become even more sensitive about the integrity of their images, and
    photoshopping a picture is almost universally unacceptable.

    Remember - fake photos are almost as old as the camera itself!

    Mike, Aug 8, 2006
  9. Celcius

    kctan Guest

    It is a moral issue. I've seen well doctored photo using darkroom technique.
    Photoshop just make it easy.
    kctan, Aug 8, 2006
  10. Celcius

    Hebee Jeebes Guest

    Yes it is. Unless asked to do so by the person in question. We are talking
    news here people not porn. For example the prison abuse scandal that hit the
    US. Our news agencies and our government should NOT have blot out the
    pictures. I think seeing them without that would have created and even
    bigger problem for our lame ass president and his jackass henchmen. But, no
    they tamed it and so it didn't have the impact it should have.

    They did the same thing with the beheadings in Iraq. Had the video been
    shown in full and intact, more pressure would have been placed on our
    leaders. Instead there was nothing visual to offend American's. Most of
    which have never seen such a thing and so just hear about it had little
    impact. The un-educated mind just doesn't full render things like that. You
    have to see it, confront it for it to truly move and affect you in to doing
    something about it.

    Hebee Jeebes, Aug 9, 2006
  11. Celcius

    Mike Guest

    I take your point - it's virtually impossible for any agency to scrutinise
    huge numbers of pictures in detail. However, I know of a number of
    occassions where a picture has been rejected by an agency because of
    suspicion it's been "doctored" - in one case, I can categorically confirm
    the picture WAS genuine (and no, it wasn't one of mine!) These cases never
    get reported, or blogged about of course.

    OOH - I know of quite a few more cases where an altered image has gone
    through undetected.....

    I think the bottom line is that everybody in the business knows the rules,
    everybody knows that doctored images do immense harm to the integrity of
    photojournalism - so nobody should complain too loud when they get caught
    and blacklisted.

    Mike, Aug 10, 2006
  12. indeed the line "the camera never lies" has always been porkies.

    Roger Merriman, Aug 17, 2006
  13. Celcius

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Would that be the same "left wing" NYT that was reprinting Bush
    administration propaganda and lies in the lead up to the invasion of
    You're just another right-wing bigot.
    Ray Fischer, Aug 18, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.