New York Times Burned once more by Photoshop..

[johnastovall]

"At any rate, it seems the paper commissioned the distinguished Portuguese photographer Edgar Martins to travel the U.S. photographing abandoned construction projects for an article in the Magazine. Pretty obvious what they expected, since a sentence near the start of the article began, "Martins, who creates his images with long exposures but without digital manipulation, traveled...." A commenter at metafilter named unixrat (who turns out to be Adam Gurno of Rosemount, Minnesota—there's an audio interview with him on Minnesota Public Radio News) got suspicious, and compared one of the pictures with a straight left-to-right flip, proving the photo was a mirror composite with a few details changed to disguise the fact. Curiously, a lot of the discussion at metafilter addressed people who "just couldn't see" how the flip proved the image was fake."

Full Story at The Online Photographer.

[dbphotos]

Ok, I see the difference, but why? I don't get what was accomplished.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by dbphotos

Ok, I see the difference, but why? I don't get what was accomplished.

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...."

[ChristopherCoy]

mountain out of a mohill if you ask me.... if it were a significant/drastic change I would see a problem.

[ChuckW]

It IS a violation of ethics, but I agree with David, I don't see what was accomplished!

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy

mountain out of a mohill if you ask me.... if it were a significant/drastic change I would see a problem.

Suggest you read the codes of ethics for photojournalism work. Any change is significant and will cost you your sale and reputation.

[ChristopherCoy]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Suggest you read the codes of ethics for photojournalism work. Any change is significant and will cost you your sale and reputation.

Not a photojournalist, so I dont need to... and quite frankly, dont really care. But this particular instance, I just don't see the issue. Its a couple of 2x4's...

[Patti Edens]

It looks pretty drastic to me. One entire side of the photo is just a flipped mirror image of the other side. Half of the photo is not real. That's pretty drastic in my book.

For example.

Here's a photo.



Here's a flipped version.



Looks pretty different, huh?

[jeffkohn]

What truly amazes me about the TOP article, is how anybody could call the NYT "America's Best Newspaper". Even if you happen to share their biased world viewpoint, I don't see how anybody could deny that the paper's reputation has been tarnished far too many times in recent years to deserve such a lofty title.

[bigjon0107]

Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy

Not a photojournalist, so I dont need to... and quite frankly, dont really care.

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.

[jgrindal]

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.

+1

[Cajungaltx]

Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy

Not a photojournalist, so I dont need to... and quite frankly, dont really care. But this particular instance, I just don't see the issue. Its a couple of 2x4's...

I think a HUGE part of it is that the photographer in question states that he does 'long timed exposures with no digital manipulation'.... which is apparently false.

If you look up a post or so - John Stovall posts a link to a Honduras website where they photoshoped out the blood on a shirt ... it changes things.

There are times when photoshop/digital manipulation has it's place... and there are times where it should not be altered in ANY manner...

[Dobick]

call me out on this please, but it is my understanding that magazine work had less stringent/non-existent rules governing publishing manipulated images?

to travel the U.S. photographing abandoned construction projects for an article in the Magazine

[bigjon0107]

Originally Posted by Dobick

call me out on this please, but it is my understanding that magazine work had less stringent/non-existent rules governing publishing manipulated images?

Usually that is true, but the majority of magazines are for entertainment rather then hard news.

[SeanS]

Here's the NY Times Lens blog talking about the article, which states the paper's policy on image manipulation...

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/behind-5/