Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]For art photography, anything goes. You can add and subtract anything you want to improve the composition or illustrate your vision. For photojournalists, there are rules - codes of ethics. Absolutely nothing can be added or removed from the photo. Many photojournalists have been fired for manipulating photos - and they should be. You can find more about the code of ethics on NPPA's site: http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics.html One quote: "I do not think the public cares if it is a little lie or a big lie As far as they are concerned, once the shutter has been tripped and the *moment* has been captured on film, in the context of news, we no longer have the right to change the content of the photo in any way. Any change to a news photo - any violation of that *moment* - is a lie. Big or small, any lie damages your credibility." Whether you are making OJ Simpson look more sinister by darkening his complexion, or straightening someone's teeth to make them look more presentable, putting Oprah's head on Ann-Margaret's body, adding more smoke to a war photo to make the bombing look worse, moving soldiers around to make a situation more confrontational - it doesn't matter. All of those have happened and they are all lies. The photo of Obama on the cover of the Economist is a lie. I can't understand how professional photographers can defend manipulation of the image in a news photo. It is wrong. And it is dangerous. Tina On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Chris Crawford < chris at chriscrawfordphoto.com> wrote: > If I'm getting paid, I don't care how they print it. I've sold stuff to a > lot of businesses and they ask things like is it ok to crop, tone, > colorize, > retouch, etc. Hell I don't care, send me my check. I'm not a journalist > though. I'm just an artist who earns his living licensing my work to > businesses, and selling prints to people that like art. > > > -- > Chris Crawford > Fine Art Photography > Fort Wayne, Indiana > 260-424-0897 > > http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio > > http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com My latest work! > > > > On 7/6/10 9:52 PM, "Philip Forrest" <photo.forrest at earthlink.net> wrote: > > > So Mark, do you care if an editor uses one of your images and removes > > two people in your work, potentially changing the impact along many > > axes in the eye of the viewer? What if it is not how you wanted the > > image presented? > > > > It IS better for the magazine cover,the way it was edited, but that way > > it was edited was also potentially very wrong. Unless one just cares > > about the dolla billz and not the truth or the historical record. In > > that case, 'shop away! > > Phil Forrest > > > > > >> Well there are degrees of altering photos and in the darkroom > >> photographers did it with every photo they have turned in for > >> decades. And In the case of the magazines like LIFE those images > >> would be drastically altered at that point. Everything smoothed out > >> and simplified. Nobody said a cross world about it but now that its > >> Photoshop instead of an airbrush in sombody hand its a huge moral > >> issue. Did that lady not being there distort the story? It was the > >> opinion apparently of the people in the magazine that the image was > >> more concise without her. I agree. > >> > >> [Rabs] > >> Mark William Rabiner > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > -- Tina Manley, ASMP www.tinamanley.com