You can understand how easy it is, in this day of digital editing, to get carried away. It's almost automatic to go from making corrections to making an artistic improvement or two, maybe change the image a bit to better convey the sense or perspective of a story. It's a slippery slope, though. There, so handy on the tool bar, is the Clone Tool. An inconvenient object or person can be rubbed out so easily, so quickly, and so easily, so quickly is reality falsified and the journalistic purpose betrayed. I think we all have a pretty good idea of what goes over the line.
The Economist often refers to itself in its pages as 'this newspaper.' It can't have it all ways. It's too bad the original photo didn't didn't quite fit the dramatic purpose, the President brooding alone on the beach, the source of his problem rudely persistent in the distance, but cloning out his companions was falsification of fact. The problem could have been avoided by having artwork done to convey the desired impression.
[[It isn't unknown for The Economist's reportage to be threaded with out-and-out editorializing and interpretation-on-a-platter. They apparently feel they have a geo-political mission.]
Was the article a hard news article or an editorial?
Clinton did a posed shot on the beach at Normandy for Memorial Day. It was a staged photo-op designed to look like a spontaneous moment. If Obama had asked everyone to clear the beach so he could pose for the camera and send his own message would people feel any different? It would still be a manipulated scene. Manipulating the scene for a desired effect is acceptable, but manipulating the image is not?
This is a magazine cover designed to sell magazines. I don't have a problem with the cover. I think the actual image should have been printed on the inside cover.
If the other people who are in the original image are relevant then they should have been kept in the scene, but there was only one relevant person in the picture. Everyone else is just clutter.
mdude85 wrote:
There is very little "hard news" in the Economist. Almost all of it is editorialized.
And, the covers almost always correspond to a straight editorial piece, usually at the front of the section. Then, later in the magazine there are more news (though heavily editorialized... which is done explicitly at Economist... it's their shtick) based stories covering the topic.
I still think there should be a credit noting it as a photo illustration.
mdude85 wrote:
There is very little "hard news" in the Economist. Almost all of it is editorialized.
Then what is the problem? If it is an editorial there is no reason to complain. The manipulation is minor and no alteration was done to the two most significant subjects (Obama & the oil platform) in the the photo. The extra people in the image are irrelevant noise.
Winder wrote:
The manipulation is minor and no alteration was done to the two most significant subjects (Obama & the oil platform) in the the photo. The extra people in the image are irrelevant noise.
Seriously ... there is a difference between editorial and news coverage ... but the Economist wasn't using an editorial cartoon on their cover ... they were using a photograph ... photographs have always been considered the unaltered truth ...
At the time the image was captured by Reuters those other people were very relevant to Obama ... as you can see he was listening to the lady at his right, not in solitary repose in the shadow of an oil rig .... those folks were much more than clutter .... manipulation in a portrait is one thing, manipulation either for editorial or news coverage without identifying it as such is quite another ..... all the Economist had to do was refer to the cover image as a photo illustration .... then the controversy is over ...
If you make a habit of manipulating photos to convey your ambitions by removing or distorting the content and not declaring it as an altered illustration... how is the reader to differentiate between those manipulations and those images which have not been manipulated? .... this can eventually lead to the public regarding all photojournalism as bogus, without credibility ..... so there is a relevancy ... a very important one ....
Assuming "photographs" are expected to be accurate, suggesting that an inaccurate or misleading photograph (through cropping, manipulations, etc.) is acceptable because it's really a "photo illustration" instead seems to miss the point.
Does this warning label/credit go on the cover with the image? "Warning: This is a photo illustration and as such may have been manipulated to the extent that it creates an impression that may not be warranted by the facts or the circumstances present at the time the original picture was taken."
Of course, that could be modified to apply to the written words as well, that facts or elements have been presented in a way that those with differing opinions may find the presentation to be distorted or inaccurate. Which gets back to the issue that the line between "news" and opinion has been blurred to the point that there is perhaps even more distrust of the news media than in the past.
Craig Gillette wrote:
Assuming "photographs" are expected to be accurate, suggesting that an inaccurate or misleading photograph (through cropping, manipulations, etc.) is acceptable because it's really a "photo illustration" instead seems to miss the point.
Does this warning label/credit go on the cover with the image? "Warning: This is a photo illustration and as such may have been manipulated to the extent that it creates an impression that may not be warranted by the facts or the circumstances present at the time the original picture was taken."
Of course, that could be modified to apply to the written words as well, that facts or elements have been presented in a way that those with differing opinions may find the presentation to be distorted or inaccurate. Which gets back to the issue that the line between "news" and opinion has been blurred to the point that there is perhaps even more distrust of the news media than in the past.
"Photo illustration" does not miss the point in a case like this. I'd love to see the credit in small print on the cover in a relatively hidden place (not hidden, but not interfering with the overall purpose of the cover), and then inside, where cover images are usually credited. But that's not likely... so inside in the normal place would be fine.
And no, it doesn't need a long explanation. "Photo illustration by TK" would be sufficient.
Just because photos are mainly thought of in the journalism business as "documentary" by the general public does not mean that photos are now precluded from ever being editorial, artistic, or counter-factual in usage.
justruss wrote:
And no, it doesn't need a long explanation. "Photo illustration by TK" would be sufficient.
Such is the case for procedure used by many many publications ... the work is defined in the byline or similar reference in lieu of a byline so the reader/viewer is made aware of the difference ....
Also there is the concern as to what freedom is actually allocated from wire sources to their affiliates as to what the affiliates may or may not do with images they receive ... I know that AP has limitations within their member use contracts, though I can't recall the specifics .. and those specifics may have changed in recent years .. I would think Reuters would have similar limitations ... as it is a direct reflection upon the source when images are altered in such a fashion and could shed an unflattering light upon them if used improperly. Similar as if the originator would submit an altered image to a wire service for distribution to affiliates could have a direct impact upon the distributor's credibility.
Yes, Reuters may have their own rules about re-use and alterations-- and no doubt The Economist or anyone else taking photos from the wire needs to follow their contractual obligations.
But that's a different question then how a photo illustration should be credited.
Hell, once it becomes an illustration, you've probably got to change the byline to reflect both the photographer and the person who created the illustration.
I'm not even sure if this altered photograph qualifies as a photoillustration by some definitions, so maybe that's why they didn't label is as such. Plenty of us perform cloning, cropping and other alterations to our photos and never claim them as photoillustrations.
I feel comfortable cropping random people or objects out of the periphery of a photo, but not cloning (even for random stuff on the periphery). Part of the reason is that minor cropping is basically the same thing as shooting with a different focal length, where everything on one side of the image at a certain point is cut, universally, away. Cloning, however, is not a consistent process: you can take one thing out of a bunch of things and leave the rest of the bunch. As far as I understand-- and practice-- cloning is OK for removing pixel-level blemishes like dust on the sensor or a blown/stuck pixel. But it's not OK for removing stuff in the photo that existed in the scene at the moment the shutter is pushed. And it's not OK for fixing major blemishes, even if caused by lensflare or whatever, that in doing so means having to re-build major portion of the image.
Cloning people out of images (or signposts... I'm not really cool with the Kent State edit... though it is easier to justify), or moving pyramids so they can all appear to fit onto a cover, should all, in my opinion, be labelled illustrations. Actually, the pyramid thing, because of where it appeared (Nat Geo) should simply not be done-- because that is sold purely as documentary, not fantasyland imagery (hence the policy change).
I recall a report showing how Reuters had cropped out weapons when they shot an image of the Israeli embargo boat, in order to support the notion that the mob on the boat was unarmed. Report showed the edited and unedited photo.
Savas K wrote:
I recall a report showing how Reuters had cropped out weapons when they shot an image of the Israeli embargo boat, in order to support the notion that the mob on the boat was unarmed. Report showed the edited and unedited photo.
Link?
If they did that and asserted that there were no weapons-- that would clearly be "against the rules." It would be a cold lie. And whoever was involved would probably be fired.
The wire services employ many stringers, and occasionally the stringers do something shady (like doctor photos to make the smoke look thicker), for which they get fired-- and hopefully not hired by anyone else.
mdude85 wrote:
I'm not even sure if this altered photograph qualifies as a photoillustration by some definitions, so maybe that's why they didn't label is as such. Plenty of us perform cloning, cropping and other alterations to our photos and never claim them as photoillustrations.
Yes ... but are you submitting those images for publication as news coverage?
You are confusing retouching for commercial use with journalistic reportage ... there is quite a difference ... I do both ... in my wedding, portraiture and product photography .. I have no qualms in retouching to the degree that makes the client happy. I routinely touch up acne, Rosacea or other skin blemishes for Senior portraits ... I also create a number of different action sports collages ... but I would never "process" an image for news or sports coverage in the same manner ... and would never clone out or use content aware fill over elements of an image that I find a distraction.
Heck, I had a friend that was fired from his PJ job because he cloned out a Coke can setting on the table at a City Council meeting because he thought is was distracting ... when his publisher compared his image to one that ran in a cross town paper ... he was terminated ... there has to be a line that is not crossed ...
However you want to define the term for what the Economist did to the Reuter's photo is irrelevant ... it should have been labeled as something other than a photo so everyone knew what it was. For if we don't set standards as to what is acceptable in image editing for reportage and even editorial use ... where does it stop? Whose definition do we adhere to ... or should it be a free-for-all whatever happens standard defined by the individual on hand?
butchM wrote:
Yes ... but are you submitting those images for publication as news coverage?
You are confusing retouching for commercial use with journalistic reportage ... there is quite a difference ... I do both ... in my wedding, portraiture and product photography .. I have no qualms in retouching to the degree that makes the client happy. I routinely touch up acne, Rosacea or other skin blemishes for Senior portraits ... I also create a number of different action sports collages ... but I would never "process" an image for news or sports coverage in the same manner ... and would never clone out or use content aware fill over elements of an image that I find a distraction.
I shot for both commercial and journalistic usage as well, so I know the difference. I don't think the usage should be the only determining factor for whether an image is considered to be a photoillustration or not. I don't work for Economist, but I imagine they have some standards for what they label as a photoillustration and what they do not. Perhaps this image did not meet those standards. Maybe those standards need to change, who knows?
However you want to define the term for what the Economist did to the Reuter's photo is irrelevant ... it should have been labeled as something other than a photo so everyone knew what it was.
Huh? This makes no sense. However the term is defined is how the image should be labeled. The image cannot be labeled without determining what the label should be. Although I'd have to agree with the others that there should have been a reprinting of the original image, perhaps on the inside cover or TOC.
For if we don't set standards as to what is acceptable in image editing for reportage and even editorial use ... where does it stop? Whose definition do we adhere to ... or should it be a free-for-all whatever happens standard defined by the individual on hand?
The Economist has been publishing for quite some time now. I think they have standards, but perhaps the image failed to meet their standards for a photoillustration, so it was labeled as a photograph, or not labeled at all. Just my opinion. What body or authority do you think should be setting the standard?
If they did that and asserted that there were no weapons-- that would clearly be "against the rules." It would be a cold lie. And whoever was involved would probably be fired.
Whatever that was, it was either bad judgement, poor attention to detail-- or an employee with an agenda.
That said, it's going a little far to say that the crop was done "in order to support the notion that the mob on the boat were unarmed."
That's a good example of editorializing while claiming neutrality.
What we know is that someone cropped the photos. We don't know why. We know that the photos were not shot by an employee or stringer, but by a group that calls themselves activists.
It's editorializing to use the term "mob" in this case without qualifying it. It's editorializing to say that Reuters did this for some or other reason (since we can only guess what the reason is). Further, the original image doesn't tell us whether the group ("mob") was unarmed or not BASED ON THE IMAGE... because we don't know, BASED ON THE IMAGE, if the weapons were brought on by the group ("mob") or taken off the commandos.
It's not editorializing to say that someone at Reuters cropped the image. But that's about it. The speculation becomes editorializing.
It's also editorializing when the people who made these posts say that it's not the first time Reuters was caught mocking up photos-- because the 2006 case they refer to (Israel/Lebanon war) involved a stringer who was supplying photos to Reuters. When a few of his photos were found to be doctored (which they were indeed) Reuters pulled all 900 he had ever contributed to the service.
Reuters is responsible for making sure their stringers (and employees) supply factual information, but individual weasels are impossible to guard against 100% of the time. That doesn't indicate that the entire organization is taking some stance.
I'm pretty sure the public isn't going to see "Illustration" and realize it's suggesting that the photograph they get is somehow manipulated beyond the limits of a journalistic code of ethics. A source that makes a practice of incorporating opinion in with reporting is unlikely to "tag" any or all of it's material, whether it's text or pictures. I doubt we will reach the stage where a publication provides a list: "Cover, page 6, page 10, page 12 lower right, page 25. These pictures are "photo illustrations." Of course, then the readers will want to know what difference that makes and that puts everyone back in the same place - it isn't what is seems to be.
