Re: PDN article
Up until digital became really common, even in smaller newspapers, around 2000, wide angle shots were the dominating fad. It seemed like papers couldn't get enough of them in all their distorted glory - in fact, the more distorted they were, the more compliments they seemed to get, regardless of whether they had any actual relevant content (at least in my neck of the woods). Then came digital, which meant many photogs didn't have a real wide-angle any more, and which caused them to have to use - gasp! - real creativity again. The only time I have ever seen a disclaimer was on a sports photo using a zoom effect. I think wide-angle lenses can add interest to a photo, but only if the photo had an actual subject of interest to begin with. I don't like distortion as a sole purpose for a photo, but as cheaper wide-angle-for-digital lenses become more available, I'm afraid we'll see a trend back to that again. - Original Message - From: Stephen Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 10:24 AM Subject: Re: PDN article William Robb wrote: I draw a very clear line between news/ journalism photos and editorial/art photos, in much the same way I draw a clear line between a news story and a work of fiction. In one, it's OK to hedge the truth, in the other it isn't. As far as critiquing goes, it has to be done in the context of how the photo will be used. If the photo is to be used as a news photo, then the thrust of the critique would likely be very different from a critique of a fine art photo. I think I've got an example of a gray area here, and I'm curious to hear what other list members might think. My wife's the editor of a smallish city/regional morning daily (approx. 40,000 circulation) and is very much a purist when it comes to the line between reportorial and feature material. Early this year the Sunday New York Times ran a color page 1 photo of a square in Baghdad, showing a grand mosque Saddam had had built, with minarets in the shape of AK-47s and Scud missiles. It kind of a neat shot, taken in the afterglow of twilight but with the floodlights of the monument already on. The most interesting thing was that the minarets had a marked tilt toward the center of the frame -- which, as most photographers could tell immediately, was the result of a very wide lens tilted off the perfectly square and level. Overall, a picture-postcard shot with a kind of ominous backspin. As a photographer (sort of), this didn't bother me. I liked the overall gestalt of the shot. Further, nowadays I think most readers have become visually sophisticated enough that they'd realize these things were actually vertical, even though they might not be able to articulate it if asked. In many discussions over the months, my wife has been adamant that they should not have used the photo, or should at least have had some explanation in the cutline as to why the real-life scene didn't look like the picture. What say you all? Regards, Stephen
Re: PDN article
T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wondered why Schneider was singled out to be made an example of, the PDN article makes that clear. A jealous competitor in the contest complained. I don't know if the photographers who complained were competitors, but there certainly seems to be some political sub text of this kind going on. I find it very suspicious that the Charlotte Observer won't let anyone see the unaltered files so they can be compared to the published photos. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PDN article
But where do you draw the line? Do you draw it at no editorializing? Just a bit? And who decides if the content has effectively changed? To me, that's the crux of the issue. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so is the meaning of a photo. Some leave less to the imagination than others, but photography is always an interprative art. Who decides what doesn't matter? Who decides what is the meaning of a photo? The creator or the viewer? Both? In the case of journalistic photography (news photos), there should be as little as possible left for interpretation. Photojournalism, or really, journalism of any kind, should be information first and foremost. Agreed. I think you will find that the vast majority of news organisations uphold very stringent regards for images (both moving and still) in that they will be manipulated in the least amount possible to ensure they remain a true record of the scene. By this, I mean only technical alterations to (say) colour, contrast etc. This is once the images are within the news organisation. Before they enter that organisation, they are subject to the wishes of the photographer, and anyone else's hands they pass through. You pays your money, you takes your choice. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: PDN article
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But where do you draw the line? Do you draw it at no editorializing? Just a bit? And who decides if the content has effectively changed? To me, that's the crux of the issue. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so is the meaning of a photo. Some leave less to the imagination than others, but photography is always an interprative art. Who decides what doesn't matter? Who decides what is the meaning of a photo? The creator or the viewer? Both? In the case of journalistic photography (news photos), there should be as little as possible left for interpretation. Photojournalism, or really, journalism of any kind, should be information first and foremost. Agreed. I think you will find that the vast majority of news organisations uphold very stringent regards for images (both moving and still) in that they will be manipulated in the least amount possible to ensure they remain a true record of the scene. By this, I mean only technical alterations to (say) colour, contrast etc. This is once the images are within the news organisation. Before they enter that organisation, they are subject to the wishes of the photographer, and anyone else's hands they pass through. You pays your money, you takes your choice. What's interesting is that many news organizations have long had different standards for hard news coverage and features/entertainment stories. I'm speaking of writing rather than photography here but I can't imagine why photography should be treated any differently. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: PDN article
-Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wondered why Schneider was singled out to be made an example of, the PDN article makes that clear. A jealous competitor in the contest complained. I don't know if the photographers who complained were competitors, but there certainly seems to be some political sub text of this kind going on. I find it very suspicious that the Charlotte Observer won't let anyone see the unaltered files so they can be compared to the published photos. On the way out of town I picked up a copy of the Observer to read the article Patrick had mentioned would be coming out. The article is on the editorial page, and shows the unaltered version of the shot of the 2 firefighters commiserating at a funeral. You can find the altered version on the Observer site. In the background you can see some stuff, thrown way out of focus by DOF. If you look at it for a second, one is obviously a person in uniform, from the neck down. There might be a head above one of the fireman's heads. In the final version, the background is black. It's also been cropped. tv
Re: PDN article
tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wondered why Schneider was singled out to be made an example of, the PDN article makes that clear. A jealous competitor in the contest complained. I don't know if the photographers who complained were competitors, but there certainly seems to be some political sub text of this kind going on. I find it very suspicious that the Charlotte Observer won't let anyone see the unaltered files so they can be compared to the published photos. On the way out of town I picked up a copy of the Observer to read the article Patrick had mentioned would be coming out. The article is on the editorial page, and shows the unaltered version of the shot of the 2 firefighters commiserating at a funeral. You can find the altered version on the Observer site. In the background you can see some stuff, thrown way out of focus by DOF. If you look at it for a second, one is obviously a person in uniform, from the neck down. There might be a head above one of the fireman's heads. In the final version, the background is black. It's also been cropped. CROPPED??? Hang him! ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PDN article
Speaking as a photojournalist and editor whose work is entered in contests every year, the pressure to produce prizewinning photos is immense. The photographers are usually awarded substantial bonuses for winning photos, plus the paper in question (or its parent company) gets bragging rights. Most will overlook a lot for a good contest entry. It seems his parent paper is being a bit disingenuous in suspending him when I'm sure they knew very well what was done to those photos, and may have actually directed him to do it. As you can see, there is also obvious incentive for competing photographer to either rat out another or at least try to cast some doubt over the photo. Sadly, if they go back and look at the runners-up in his category, they'll probably find the same thing. I don't think what he did was terribly wrong, but I don't think it was terribly right, either. I hate to say this, but when you see a news photo that appears too perfect, the timing too fortuitous - just too good to be true, it probably is. It's especially apparent when you've covered the same event at the same time, and you know for sure what you see in the other guy's photo didn't happen that way. I knew one photographer who staged every photo he took. It's not just the photographer's fault. The name of the game is circulation, which leads to ad dollars. Once you win, they expect you to keep on winning. It's especially bad at the dailies, where the stakes are the highest. And a lot of those editors, if they smell a winner, will be more than happy to make that little alteration for you, if you haven't done it yourself. - Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 10:59 AM Subject: RE: PDN article -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wondered why Schneider was singled out to be made an example of, the PDN article makes that clear. A jealous competitor in the contest complained. I don't know if the photographers who complained were competitors, but there certainly seems to be some political sub text of this kind going on. I find it very suspicious that the Charlotte Observer won't let anyone see the unaltered files so they can be compared to the published photos. On the way out of town I picked up a copy of the Observer to read the article Patrick had mentioned would be coming out. The article is on the editorial page, and shows the unaltered version of the shot of the 2 firefighters commiserating at a funeral. You can find the altered version on the Observer site. In the background you can see some stuff, thrown way out of focus by DOF. If you look at it for a second, one is obviously a person in uniform, from the neck down. There might be a head above one of the fireman's heads. In the final version, the background is black. It's also been cropped. tv
Re: PDN article
Treena wrote: Speaking as a photojournalist and editor whose work is entered in contests every year, the pressure to produce prizewinning photos is immense. The photographers are usually awarded substantial bonuses for winning photos, plus the paper in question (or its parent company) gets bragging rights. The very first thing that comes to mind is, are you independent, as a PJ? A PJ working outside your contracting agency (employer) and an editor inside? Or? [rest snipped] keith whaley
Re: PDN article
No, actually. I'm both at once. I'm the managing editor of two weeklies, but I shoot and write for dailies within the company as assigned as well as my own papers. It's pretty demanding. - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 12:58 PM Subject: Re: PDN article Treena wrote: Speaking as a photojournalist and editor whose work is entered in contests every year, the pressure to produce prizewinning photos is immense. The photographers are usually awarded substantial bonuses for winning photos, plus the paper in question (or its parent company) gets bragging rights. The very first thing that comes to mind is, are you independent, as a PJ? A PJ working outside your contracting agency (employer) and an editor inside? Or? [rest snipped] keith whaley
Re: PDN article
Treena wrote: No, actually. I'm both at once. I'm the managing editor of two weeklies, but I shoot and write for dailies within the company as assigned as well as my own papers. It's pretty demanding. I guess! What do you DO in all of your spare time? g keith - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 12:58 PM Subject: Re: PDN article Treena wrote: Speaking as a photojournalist and editor whose work is entered in contests every year, the pressure to produce prizewinning photos is immense. The photographers are usually awarded substantial bonuses for winning photos, plus the paper in question (or its parent company) gets bragging rights. The very first thing that comes to mind is, are you independent, as a PJ? A PJ working outside your contracting agency (employer) and an editor inside? Or? [rest snipped] keith whaley
Re: PDN article
Wouldja believe I take pictures? Seriously. I just picked up our town's youth athletic league contract. That, and I sew, crochet, knit, make jewelry ... I'm not happy if I'm not doing something. I also like taking long vacations far away from my office, but that kinda goes without saying. - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 2:39 PM Subject: Re: PDN article Treena wrote: No, actually. I'm both at once. I'm the managing editor of two weeklies, but I shoot and write for dailies within the company as assigned as well as my own papers. It's pretty demanding. I guess! What do you DO in all of your spare time? g keith
Re: PDN article
I knew one photographer who staged every photo he took. HCB? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
PDN article
Hi guys; There's an article on Schneider and his lost POY awards at PDN http://pdnonline.com He was the guy that spoke at GFM. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Demian)
Re: PDN article
And from my point of view he did nothing that changed the meaning of the photographs. Getting rid of a distracting background is a long long way from cloning in someone who wasn't there. I think this is all coming about because people are now buying digital cameras. Almost all of them come with some kind of digital editing software so people are becoming aware that things like this are possible. In the past they kind of thought that a photographer had no more control over the content of their pictures that the consumer did over his snapshots. That never was true. To me the line is when you do something that changes the meaning of a photograph. Editing for impact is in my mind just part of the photographic process. Just a couple of weeks ago you were all trying to get Boris in trouble by telling him to clone out that trash can grin. I wondered why Schneider was singled out to be made an example of, the PDN article makes that clear. A jealous competitor in the contest complained. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Butch Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 5:08 PM Subject: PDN article Hi guys; There's an article on Schneider and his lost POY awards at PDN http://pdnonline.com He was the guy that spoke at GFM. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Demian) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/03
Re: PDN article
- Original Message - From: T Rittenhouse Subject: Re: PDN article And from my point of view he did nothing that changed the meaning of the photographs. Getting rid of a distracting background is a long long way from cloning in someone who wasn't there. I think this is all coming about because people are now buying digital cameras. Almost all of them come with some kind of digital editing software so people are becoming aware that things like this are possible. In the past they kind of thought that a photographer had no more control over the content of their pictures that the consumer did over his snapshots. That never was true. The problem is that this sort of thing becomes the thin edge of the wedge. You start by making a little tweak here, a bit of a clone there, and as time goes on you find yourself routinely making alterations to content. And suddenly, you are no longer a news photographer but a visual editorialist, probably still passing your fictionalized images off as news. You start posing people and calling the image news, or you take several images and paste them together to make a news picture. Perhaps there is no harm in this if it is done innocently, or to make a picture have more impact without altering the news value (the Brian Walski image from Iraq that got him fired is a pretty good example of editorializing that causes no real harm). But where do you draw the line? Do you draw it at no editorializing? Just a bit? And who decides if the content has effectively changed? If a picture of George Bush fornicating a goat is run in an Arab newspaper, is it news or is it editorial? What if it makes it to the New York Times? It's hard enough to believe news photos these days because of the amount of image massaging that is done with long focal length lenses taking things out of context and journalists with Stockholm Syndrome passing off their tripe from the front lines as news without having to add in the question about whether anything in the picture had a relationship to each other at the moment the picture was taken. Allowing any removal or addition of image details, whether they matter to the image or not makes a mockery out of what is already pretty much a sham. To me the line is when you do something that changes the meaning of a photograph. Editing for impact is in my mind just part of the photographic process. Just a couple of weeks ago you were all trying to get Boris in trouble by telling him to clone out that trash can grin. To stay serious, if Boris was passing the image off as a news photo, then the cloning out of the garbage can would be wrong, if it is an editorial or art photo, then that is a different thing completely. We have to hold journalists to a very high ethical standard, because they are often the people who sway public opinion. Either what they choose to cover, or how they choose to cover it can cause some pretty major events to happen. Would the bombing of Iraq have happened if CNN had mocked the entire concept of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction? Would the American public have allowed the war to happen if the news media had been broadcasting that GWB was bald faced lying to them about his reasons for wanting to wage a war? For myself, I have more respect for the American public than that. I am pretty sure if they had known that there was a lot of fabrication going on, and that their President was being spoon fed a bill of goods to sway him into doing something, they would have demanded some accountability up front before they put their son's and daughter's lives on the line. We'll never know, though, since the media saw a huge opportunity to make lots of money and ratings. War is big business for more than the people that make guns, tanks and uranium tipped shells. It's a huge industry that will make a lot of money for anyone that can jump on the wagon and go downtown with it. Froth up a story, give it a spin to strike fear into the hearts of the masses, and boom bang, you suddenly have a nice little war that you can make tons of money with. The only losers are the soldiers who get injured or die as part of the thing, and a bunch of rag headed foreigners who no one over here give a damn about anyway. This is how news works nowadays, and quite frankly, I find it quite disgusting that the news media wants these things to happen as badly as the companies that make tanks and bullets, and is willing to manipulate not only the general public, but the people who make the decisions about who gets to live, and who gets the shit bombed out of them. Sorry for the rant, and it wasn't meant to be an anti anyone diatribe (except possibly the puss heads at CNN) William Robb
Re: PDN article
- Original Message - From: Doug Franklin Subject: Re: PDN article On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 20:56:14 -0600, William Robb wrote: But where do you draw the line? Do you draw it at no editorializing? Just a bit? And who decides if the content has effectively changed? To me, that's the crux of the issue. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so is the meaning of a photo. Some leave less to the imagination than others, but photography is always an interprative art. Who decides what doesn't matter? Who decides what is the meaning of a photo? The creator or the viewer? Both? In the case of journalistic photography (news photos), there should be as little as possible left for interpretation. Photojournalism, or really, journalism of any kind, should be information first and foremost. William Robb
