"John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark Roberts mused: >> >> Here's an interesting editorial from ZoneZero about the controversy. It >> includes all three of Schneider's disqualified photos, both in their >> original and altered versions: >> http://www.zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/october.html > >Interesting. Thanks, Mark. > >I took a quick look at the images. On my (uncalibrated) notebook LCD >screen, it's really difficult to see much of a difference in the 2nd >and 3rd image pairs - there's certainly less variation there than I >get from monitor adjustments, or switching to a different monitor. > >The first one is rather more controversial. I've done similar things >myself, but not over so large an area. Does that make a difference? >I don't know. Personally, if I'd done that large a modification, I >would have made the background transparent (or white, perhaps) to >make it obvious to anyone.
What makes it more difficult for newspaper editors is that different departments may have different standards. The national news desk may be very strict, while the Weekend Entertainment (or whatever) section may quite understandably permit much more latitude. At the Charlotte Observer, where Patrick Schneider works, they keep a permanent archive of every photographers RAW files (they are required to shoot RAW) so they can always go back to the original. I expect most other major newspapers do likewise but I wouldn't be surprised if some don't. If there's no original RAW file to compare things can become quite murky. The latest version of DxO Optics Pro can alter images (though only correcting for lens distortions) and save the altered file again as a RAW file. This won't be the first image application that has this capability. Who knows what others may do? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
