New York Times Burned once more by Photoshop..

[Crashoran]

I wasn't aware photojournalists had enough time to sit around playing with photoshop.

[dbphotos]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

It's a violation of ethics.

"..a sentence near the start of the article began, "Martins, who creates his images with long exposures but without digital manipulation, traveled...."

I understand ethics. I don't get why the photographer changed the image. He didn't gain anything in the final image.

[SeanS]

Originally Posted by dbphotos

I understand ethics. I don't get why the photographer changed the image. He didn't gain anything in the final image.

Must be what he got rid of, rather than what he gained, like there was something distracting on one side of the room, a bench for example so he mirrored the other side so the complete room looked empty. I dunno, just guessing...

[venchka]

Hey, shoot film. Submit contact sheets with the finished story. Don't own Photoshop.

Kinda like the way it was always done B.C.

[engstrom]

Originally Posted by dbphotos

I understand ethics. I don't get why the photographer changed the image. He didn't gain anything in the final image.

I'm with David on this one. Why would the photographer risk his reputation and livelihood to change the image? It's not as if the modified image would earn him Pulitzers and money - the modified image is essentially the same in spirit as the original so why jeopardize your reputation and violate your code of ethics to do it???

[Patti Edens]

Originally Posted by engstrom

I'm with David on this one. Why would the photographer risk his reputation and livelihood to change the image? It's not as if the modified image would earn him Pulitzers and money - the modified image is essentially the same in spirit as the original so why jeopardize your reputation and violate your code of ethics to do it???

I think most people that look at this are not getting it. And my example didn't help. We have never seen the original photograph. The photo that is labeled "original" is just the flip that the photographer made. The photo that we are seeing in the magazine has been flipped. One half has been copied and flipped to the other side covering up what was really there. 50% of the original photo has never been seen by anyone except the photographer. I don't know how to explain it any better.

The photo that is proving that it has been flipped is just another flip to show that the left and right sides exactly mirror each other.

The real original photo (as Sean points out) could have anything on the other side - people, a pile of work tools, who knows.

[Jusselin]

crazy....that photographer is an idiot

[dmora]

Originally Posted by bigjon0107

So when people start adding dead bodies into images, its not a big deal
Changing expressions, no big
Adding a ball to a sports image


All those things have happened and tons more examples are out there. How would you like these fake images being the ones printed in history books, or used in other historical documents? Our jobs are to document what happens, that is what we are trusted with in our positions; not only by our employers but by anyone who sees the image or hears about it. It is a responsibility that cannot be taken lightly.

Agreed.
Look at old WW2 photography, "Photoshop" out the Star of David and magically Hitler didnt kill millions jews, just random people. Not exactly something minor.

However image manipulation has been around since the invention of photography. And this argument has been around just as long.

[ka5txl]

Originally Posted by jgrindal

+1

+2 I'm not a photojournalist but if your trying to pass manipulated newsworthy photo's as the real deal your not a photojournalist but a propagandist. Unless of course it's for Playboy and then it's art.

[janikphoto]

Originally Posted by dmora

...However image manipulation has been around since the invention of photography. And this argument has been around just as long.

true. People claim that the famous "oswald holding his rifle" image was faked through darkroom techniques. And yes, any sort of alteration past color correction, cropping, and dodge/burn is basically forbidden in newspapers. I know we have to label a shot as a photo illustration at the dmn, if we change something beyond those basics.