A Charlotte Observer photographer was fired recently for submitting an image for print after editing it for color consistency. The paper had printed the silhouette of a fireman on a crane against a firery red sunset and when they discovered his editing of the image (it was originally a lot browner), was let go. The decision was announced subsequently in the paper, also pointing to severe image editing he had done in the past.
The interesting part of this is a matter of some debate as journalists are always editing their work, up until print time. The photogrpaher in question is a renowned photog, and it seemed clear that he was not intentionally trying to mis-represent the image, but did acknolwegde that he was “correcting an intentionally under-exposed shot”. The full story is available here: Photogapher Fired
So where does the line exist between correcting images and editing images? Who knows…
In other news, Saudi Arabia has lifted the ban on public photography, which apparently had been a long standing rule. The move was admittedly done in an effort to promote tourism and attract visitors to the “birthplace of Islam. More news from Reuters on the subject can be found here: Photography Ban Lifted
And, finally, on a non-political note, DxO labs announced today its own free beta release of its new image editing software. The story can be found here: DxO Software and the download can be found on their website here: DxO Website
Vera | 03-Aug-06 at 3:19 pm | Permalink
Very interesting. I don’t know the rules about this sort of thing, but I keep thinking of the infamous darkened OJ photo on the cover of Newsweek a while back.
Chucker | 03-Aug-06 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
Yeah and remember the 5 o’clock shadow on Richard Nixon’s face during the 1960s debate with Kennedy!
Oh, wait. That’s right. Nixon HAD that stubble look. Never mind.
jason | 04-Aug-06 at 12:29 am | Permalink
The OJ photo was a good example of photojournalism where an image was edited, and the image itself is what made the publication sell. So is this true reporting or is this a new breed of yellow journalism via the lens?
As for the Nixon shadow, while I know of it and have read about it, I was not alive for it, so I cannot speak to the photographic effects there…does that mean I am decidedly dating myself?
Harvey | 04-Aug-06 at 1:46 am | Permalink
What is real in a digital image ?
Depends on in camera settings for jpg, default raw conversions by different converters, exposure variations, in short, without instrumentation to match the scene with the image, nothing is precisely real. And then there is the presentation variation, newsprint, glossy mag, computer web graphic. They all look different.
Photographers adjust to what they think they saw at the time the picture was taken, or enhance the mood to fit the story.
As long as they don’t clone out key elements, replace or delete people, etc, I say let them do what they want. Heck, their editors do a lot worse distorting facts to promote journalistic agendas.
My $0.05 worth. (.05 because I think we need to eliminate pennies)