enhancing photos - OK or not?
F. D. Lewis
suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?
Paul Heslop
He is supposed to have claimed he was just removing dust, though it is
obvious that he also added more smoke (as if it needed any extra!)
I guess it would depend what your results achieved. Making an image
fit a story should be against the rules but news websites, specially
the BBC etc seem to use the same stock images often to cover lots of
stories, say a person was arrested at home, you'll frequently see a
picture of a policeman guarding a premises, but neither substantially
clear, so it could be virtually anything you were looking at. Either
that or one of those striped tapes with 'police' written on it.
My concern at the moment is that this story is being used to draw
interest away from the subject of the photographs themselves.
--
Paul (Neurotic to the bone No doubt about it)
------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
ColinD
that minimal, if any, work would be required on the images, and apart
from checking focus and exposure, or maybe selecting the best shots,
leave the rest to the editor of the paper. Speed is of the essence, and
wasting time fiddling with images is not in their interest.
In which case, your question doesn't arise.
Colin D.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Derek Fountain
> it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
> images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?
I think for news coverage it boils down to whether the image editor
actually changes the viewer's perception of what actually happened.
Improving the image to make it clearer portray the events (which is how
I'd describe curves and sharpening types of operations) shouldn't be a
problem. Adding huge plumes of smoke to make the image more impressive
(and therefore saleable), as the Reuters guy did, is clearly disingenuous.
stau...@usfamily.net
It has never been possible to print an image that is a perfect
replication of the original scene, not even in film days. The
developers used, both for the negs and print, affect sharpness,
contrast and brightness, as does the print paper.
I would say that digital, especially if on a color-managed setup, is
probably better in terms of sharpness, brightness and contrast control,
than film, subject to certain limitations.
The biggest limitation (either digital OR film) is that a daylit
(sunny) scene has well over a thousand to one dynamic range. Print
paper has 50:1 or less. One must ALWAYS decide whether to lower
contrast to print all tones in image, or leave contrast high and print
for either the highlights OR the shadows. Now, if you do nothing
yourself the computer does it for you these days (including the printer
driver). So NO published photo is a fully accurate recording of a
scene.
stau...@usfamily.net
It has never been possible to print an image that is a perfect
irwell
How about in the 'old days' when graphic artists drew, or sketched
pictures to accompany the news articles. Or even today, in court cases
when cameras are not allowed, but artists can draw picturees?
Roy G
news:1155203293.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Hi
It should be obvious that that sort of adjustment is Ok. That is just
compensating for what a Film Photographer would do, or have done, in the
Darkroom to get a good quality image.
What is not acceptable is adding or subtracting, parts of the image, which
change what it is representing. One Flare becomes 3, or 1 Fire becomes 2
or 3.
The difference between these 2 activities is quite clear, and the second is
not acceptable.
Roy G
mara...@gmail.com
his printer (the professional, not the machine).
Marvin
Any of these steps, in a camera or a computer, can introduce
distortions into the image. If the intent is to distort in
a particular way, that is dishonest journalism. It can be
excellent art.
Annika1980
the life and work of James Nachtwey. He's about the best there is and
some of his pics are amazing.
He still shoots film, btw.
In one segment he had his assistant print a poster size print of one of
his pics. Then they'd hang it on the wall and Nachtwey would tell the
guy, "This area needs to be a little lighter." The guy would go back
to the darkroom, do his magic and return with the corrected version.
Then Nachtwey would make some more suggestions and the guy would go
back and do it again.
The only difference between doing it that way and doing it in Photoshop
is the amount of time saved if done in the digital darkroom. The point
is, don't ever assume that a film print isn't heavily manipulated.
jeremy
news:12dpbg5...@corp.supernews.com...
I saw a piece by the photo editor of the New York Times, where she addressed
that issue. The NYT accepts corrections such as sharpening, improving
exposure values, like adjusting brightness and contrast, and adjusting color
balance where indicated. It does not accept changes that obviously alter
the truth that is purportedly being depicted, such as "painting in" objects
that did not exist on the scene when the image was taken.
In questionable cases they ask to see the raw image file.
Their approach seems to be pretty common-sense to me, but it a virtual
certainty that some photographers and news organizations will be less-strict
in their interpretation of what constitutes the difference between
"tweaking" an image and that of fundamentally changing it. The National
Enquirer, as one example, has been guilty of this sort of thing for decades.
Floyd L. Davidson
Not quite precise enough language. All of those produce
distortion (which is a predictable change between the input data
and the output data), but that does *not* make anything
dishonest. Distortion is a *necessary* and *persistant* part
making images!
If the distortion is done with intent to *deceive*, that is
dishonest. It's the deception, not the distortion, that is
dishonest.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Floyd L. Davidson
Developing film *is* a (necessary) heavy manipulation! *All*
photographs are by definition heavily manipulated. It starts
when the photographer picks a camera and film, and continues with
each and every adjustment to equipment used to generate the
final product.
Added manipulation to make the photo more artistic, more
appealing, more informative, etc. etc. is all an accepted part
of being a photographer. E.g., adjusting exposure to
bring out details in the shadows while losing the highlights, or
visa versa, is a typical manipulation, and is *not* dishonest.
Manipulation to *deceive* the viewer is dishonest. If
manipulation is done to make the viewer conclude something to be
true which is not, it is dishonest if used for "information"
purposes (as opposed to comedy, etc.).
Scott W
The term distortions is rather odd in this context, IMO.
What get printed on page of a newspaper or magazine will never be the
exact image that was seen by the camera, the dynamic range of the print
is far to small for this. So the photographer or photo editor has to
decide how to best use the limited range of the print and make needed
adjustment to contrast and brightness of the photo. As far as
saturation this has been "adjusted" in the past by simply choosing
a film has the desired saturation.
Scott
Isaiah Beard
I've written a policy on digital image preservation standards for my
employer that addresses this. Of course this was before the whole
Reuters incident, and we're taking this from the standpoint that we're
going to try and preserve digital images, and that generally means
making a best effort at keeping an unmodified original around. SO, it
wasn't written to combat fraudulently modified images, but I imagine
that if Reuters, AP and other new organizations had this policy in
place, it might cut down on this type of fraud.
Basically, whenever someone takes digital images for us, they MUST give
us an unmodified original. Preferably, that unmodified original should
be a RAW image straight off the media card, directly off the camera.
From there, we convert the RAWs into digital negatives (DNGs) using
Adobe Photoshop or Adobe Lightroom, to keep a consistent format.
In addition to that, the photographer can submit an exposure, color
and/or contrast-modified "presentation copy." They can do this with
either an xmp sidecar (basically an XML file that indicates how they
want the exposure, brightness, contrast and colorspace modified from the
RAW), or a separate TIFF or JPG. But, the photographer is made aware
that while we will take their presentation under advisement, we will
almost always create our own TIFF or JPG derivatives from the original RAW.
The RAW images have embedded EXIF metadata that tells us a number of
things. It tells us what camera make and model took the photo
(sometimes even the individual serial number is included), what date and
time was set on that camera's clock, what exposure modes were used,
wether the flash fired, etc. But, if any software like Photoshop
somehow touched this image before we got ou hands on it, that data is
normally embedded in there as well, and then we know to look carefully
at the image. Anything that comes to us in TIFF-only will also be
highly suspect. And we rarely accept anything that comes to us as a JPG
or any other form of lossy compression, purely on quality reasons.
We'll sometimes make exceptions IF the material is really good and worth
using, AND believe beyond a shadow of the doubt that the source can be
trusted. Even so, we still check carefully for modifications.
Now, can the EXIF data on the RAW images be forged? Most certainly it
can, if you really know what you're doing. This procedure isn't
foolproof, and unfortunately I doubt that any method for detecting fakes
will be 100% accurate 100% of the time. But it does ensure that the
fraudster will need a high level of expertise and skill to circumvent
what we have in place and get through unscathed. Judging by the
handiwork of the guy who doctored up the Reuters Beirut photos, he
doesn't even know how to use the clone stamp tool effectively. So, I
doubt he even knows what EXIF is, much less how to modify it.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Isaiah Beard
>> suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
>> it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
>> images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?
>
>
> Hi
>
> It should be obvious that that sort of adjustment is Ok.
That would be most peoples' observation at first. But then, do you
remember the infamous OJ mugshot?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_trial#Mugshot
Cleary a case where contrast and brightness modifications were
purposefully used to make someone appear "more sinister." So even these
enhancements need to be done with great care.
Paul Mitchum
It's getting to the point that changing the settings on your camera from
little-mountain-icon to little-flower-icon is a revolutionary act of
political courage.
Paul Mitchum
That's a really good movie. But the thing is: He was preparing those
photos for an exhibition, not for editorial publication. All that
dodging and burning likely wouldn't cut it in editorial terms.
Nachtwey has a web site: <http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/> It's full of
utterly amazing photographs.
Philippe
all fuzzy unless I'm right there..
Is it still an act of courage then?
:P
P.
Scott W
>And we rarely accept anything that comes to us as a JPG
> or any other form of lossy compression, purely on quality reasons.
compression will be just as good as a TIFF in any realistic case. Now
of course if a fair bit of compression is used then all bets are off.
Scot
Isaiah Beard
Hence the term "rarely." We'll make exceptions if the quality is very
good and the source is well known to us, with a reputation beyond
reproach. That said, most of the "beyond reproach" types know better
than to only toss a JPG our way, though there might be rare cases
(lost/damaged CF card, photographer had a brain fart and set the camera
in the wrong mode, etc.) where this is all they have for a particular shot.
Even so, now that proving image authenticity HAS become a serious issue,
accepting only a JPG leaves us a bit more vulnerable if a question does
arise about whether a photo was doctored. If someone cries foul on
something we only have a JPG for, then we have no RAW to help back us
up. And so, we would still have to look it over with a fine toothed
comb, and deliberate carefully over whether it should be used in the
first place.
Scott W
Compare jpeg to raw and raw wins hands down both on being able to tell
if the photo has been doctored and in image quaility. But comparing
jpeg to tiff and this is no difference in either being able to tell if
it has been doctored or the image quality, as long as the highest
quaility setting was used to save the jpeg.
Scott
Roy G
news:12dpj0f...@corp.supernews.com...
> Roy G wrote:
>
>>> suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
>>> it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
>>> images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?
>>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> It should be obvious that that sort of adjustment is Ok.
>
> That would be most peoples' observation at first. But then, do you
> remember the infamous OJ mugshot?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_trial#Mugshot
>
> Cleary a case where contrast and brightness modifications were
> purposefully used to make someone appear "more sinister." So even these
> enhancements need to be done with great care.
>
Ok, but he was, is, an evil bastard anyway. So it did not really change
anything.
Roy G
jeremy
When Vanessa Williams had her Miss America crown taken away because she had
taken nude photos prior to her having won the pageant, that issue came up.
(That was before the advent of digital photography, as I recall). Williams
had taken some B&W shots where she was silhouetted, and could not be
personally identified. Someone processed the negatives to crank up the
mid-tones, which revealed her face. I'm a bit foggy on the exact details,
but I remember her crying "foul" over the way the prints had been doctored
to show her face when, in fact, the original shots did not.
She lost her crown, but her career flourished anyway. And I don't think
that one person in a thousand even remembers that she was once disgraced
over some silly photos!
jeremy
"Philippe" <pboud_0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xp4Dg.4063$365.1057@edtnps89...
Yes, but the general public still believes that "the camera doesn't lie."
We all know that images can be manipulated to the point that they depict
things that never happened. From a journalistic standpoint, the ease of
digital manipulation opens new avenues for photographers and editors to
abuse the trust that the public places in them.
This can be particularly volatile in societies that are easily set off.
Wasn't one of the shots of the Israeli offensive showing a Koran sitting on
a smoldering pile of rubble? Charges have been made that the Koran was not
really there at all, but had been painted in. Stuff like that can set off
tensions.
It is not harmless, like those Loch Ness Monster "sighting" photos that have
appeared with regularity every couple of years. Or those photos of "ghosts"
that were purportedly seen at séances. We've always known about those phony
pictures, but now the practice may be going mainstream, and the public will
have to become accustomed to being skeptical about the veracity of photos
from sources they are unfamiliar with. The camera can, indeed, be made to
lie.
David Harmon
<jer...@nospam.com> wrote,
>This can be particularly volatile in societies that are easily set off.
>Wasn't one of the shots of the Israeli offensive showing a Koran sitting on
>a smoldering pile of rubble? Charges have been made that the Koran was not
>really there at all, but had been painted in. Stuff like that can set off
>tensions.
What the hell difference does it make, whether the Koran was painted
in or whether somebody carried an actual Koran to where some actual
smoldering rubble was and set it there and took a picture?
Hebee Jeebes
involved. If people are going to blow cork over pixels then let them.
R
"David Harmon" <sou...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:44f0dc4a...@news.west.earthlink.net...
Isaiah Beard
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_trial#Mugshot
>>
>> Cleary a case where contrast and brightness modifications were
>> purposefully used to make someone appear "more sinister." So even these
>> enhancements need to be done with great care.
>>
>
> Ok, but he was, is, an evil bastard anyway. So it did not really change
> anything.
So what you're saying is, if YOU think someone is an evil bastard, then
doctoring images to belabor the point is okay. I'll remember that if
ever I find myself looking at your work ;)
I happen to agree with you on OJ. Still, darkening the image to drive
that point home was IMO just as much overkill as the clone-stamp job on
the Hajj Lebanon photos. It did nothing to emphasize the message, but
everything to show people that some photojournalists just can't be
trusted to leave well well enough alone. And then those people who
*look* at our photos don't know whether to trust the images as real.
jeremy
Depending upon the intended use of the photo, some types of tweaks may be
acceptable and others may not.
The famous portrait of Winston Churchill was intentionally done up to
characterize him as a stern, ruthless leader--the kind that could stand up
to the Nazis. That was a portrait, not a news photo. As such, it certainly
fell within the definition of artistic license.
Had that been a news photo of a man that had just accidentally run over a
child, I would suggest that it would have been a most inappropriate
characterization, intended to cause suspicion in the minds of those that
viewed the photo.
Floyd L. Davidson
>The famous portrait of Winston Churchill was intentionally done up to
>characterize him as a stern, ruthless leader--the kind that could stand up
>to the Nazis. That was a portrait, not a news photo. As such, it certainly
>fell within the definition of artistic license.
>
>Had that been a news photo of a man that had just accidentally run over a
>child, I would suggest that it would have been a most inappropriate
>characterization, intended to cause suspicion in the minds of those that
>viewed the photo.
I'm not sure that is actually a valid scenario.
Consider the _many_ news articles published every day in
newspapers and news magazines around the country that are
accompanied by a photograph of some individual (a politician,
company executive, or other person related to the story)... and
said photograph is from a stock file which was specifically
provided by the company or individual. The photograph is of
course a professionally done portrait, no different than the one
of Churchill as far as being overtly *designed* to project a
particular image. It is of course "manipulated" from beginning
to end.
Now, is that dishonest? And if it is, who is being dishonest,
the individual who commissioned the photograph? The
photographer?? The agency that distributed the portrait??? The
publisher of the article???? Or nobody?
ColinD
Ottawa, a prominent photog of that era. He got the shot by leaning
forward from the camera and snatching the trade-mark cigar from
Churchill's lips, causing the great man to react with that famous
'English Bulldog' expression.
So, the shot was taken with that action, but there was no subsequent
manipulation of the image, as we understand manipulation as it is today.
Colin D.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
no_name
It changed the perception of Time Magazine's credibility as an unbiased,
honest reporter of the story.
And re-inforced stereotypes of "whitey is out to get ol' OJ" which
certainly affected the outcome of his trial.
Other than that ... yeah din' change nothin'
no_name
> the Reuters photos bring up a general topic.
>
> suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
> it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
> images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?
>
Depends on what your purpose is in creating the image.
In PJ work, it's better to get it right in the camera. The less you have
to clean up in Photoshop or any other image editing software, the better
off you are. Period. You can use some of the tools, but you're better
off if you don't need to.
If you're doing something like wedding photography or portraiture, you
damn well better touch up your images and get them as near perfect as
possible before delivering them to the client.
True commercial photography now-a-days is almost as much (if not more)
Photoshop as it is image capture.
no_name
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:48:53 +0100, Derek Fountain
> <nom...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
>>>it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
>>>images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?
>>
>>I think for news coverage it boils down to whether the image editor
>>actually changes the viewer's perception of what actually happened.
>>Improving the image to make it clearer portray the events (which is how
>>I'd describe curves and sharpening types of operations) shouldn't be a
>>problem. Adding huge plumes of smoke to make the image more impressive
>>(and therefore saleable), as the Reuters guy did, is clearly disingenuous.
>
>
> How about in the 'old days' when graphic artists drew, or sketched
> pictures to accompany the news articles. Or even today, in court cases
> when cameras are not allowed, but artists can draw picturees?
Are you a photographer or an artist illustrator?
no_name
> "jeremy" <jer...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>The famous portrait of Winston Churchill was intentionally done up to
>>characterize him as a stern, ruthless leader--the kind that could stand up
>>to the Nazis. That was a portrait, not a news photo. As such, it certainly
>>fell within the definition of artistic license.
>>
>>Had that been a news photo of a man that had just accidentally run over a
>>child, I would suggest that it would have been a most inappropriate
>>characterization, intended to cause suspicion in the minds of those that
>>viewed the photo.
>
>
> I'm not sure that is actually a valid scenario.
>
> Consider the _many_ news articles published every day in
> newspapers and news magazines around the country that are
> accompanied by a photograph of some individual (a politician,
> company executive, or other person related to the story)... and
> said photograph is from a stock file which was specifically
> provided by the company or individual. The photograph is of
> course a professionally done portrait, no different than the one
> of Churchill as far as being overtly *designed* to project a
> particular image. It is of course "manipulated" from beginning
> to end.
>
OTOH ... I attended a workshop put on by the US Army for Unit PA reps,
and this issue came up. The instructor was the chief photographer for
the US Army's PA school. Here's one of the examples he used regarding
journalistic integrity in press release photography.
He'd taken a photograph of the Army Chief of Staff and the new Sergeant
Major of the Army; standard grip and grin for a press release.
When he got back to the office and was going through the images, he
noticed he'd left several distracting elements in the photo (a clock on
the mantle between the two, some other bricka-brak he should have moved
out of the way before shooting). And they were standing just a little
too far apart for a good composition.
It was an easy photoshop fix; go in and clone out the distractions, move
the two a little closer together & fudge the background a little to make
it look natural.
Would that manipulation materially affect the image?
Not really, it was a stock portrait for a press release, and it would
still be a stock portrait when he got done with it.
Did he do it?
No, because it would not be a true image. If you can crop it to work
that's ok, but you don't crop out of the middle and remove stuff that
was there.
He tried unsuccessfully to schedule a re-shoot, but the image had to go
out with the offending distractions still in there. Even when it was
published on the cover of Soldiers magazine.
He later went back and shot another portrait, without the distractions,
that was thereafter used officially. But he didn't create that portrait
with photoshop manipulation.
> Now, is that dishonest? And if it is, who is being dishonest,
> the individual who commissioned the photograph? The
> photographer?? The agency that distributed the portrait??? The
> publisher of the article???? Or nobody?
>
If the photograph is manipulated after taking to either add or remove
elements, it's dishonest for PJ work. And anyone who knows the
photograph has been manipulated and lets it pass on to publication is
guilty of that dishonesty.
no_name
> I watched a documentary last night called "War Photographer" featuring
> the life and work of James Nachtwey. He's about the best there is and
> some of his pics are amazing.
> He still shoots film, btw.
> In one segment he had his assistant print a poster size print of one of
> his pics. Then they'd hang it on the wall and Nachtwey would tell the
> guy, "This area needs to be a little lighter." The guy would go back
> to the darkroom, do his magic and return with the corrected version.
> Then Nachtwey would make some more suggestions and the guy would go
> back and do it again.
>
> The only difference between doing it that way and doing it in Photoshop
> is the amount of time saved if done in the digital darkroom. The point
> is, don't ever assume that a film print isn't heavily manipulated.
>
OTOH, Nachtwey didn't remove anything that was already there or add
anything that wasn't.
no_name
> F. D. Lewis wrote:
>
>> the Reuters photos bring up a general topic.
>>
>> suppose you've turned down saturation and sharpening in the camera. is
>> it then OK to use levels, saturation, and sharpening in Photoshop on
>> images before submission? have you changed any of the subject matter?
>
>
>
> I've written a policy on digital image preservation standards for my
> employer that addresses this.
But what does your employer need the images for? Are they for
photo-journalism, exhibition, or commercial advertising?
The standards with regard to what may be done with an image vary
depending on the intended use.
no_name
>
> Their approach seems to be pretty common-sense to me, but it a virtual
> certainty that some photographers and news organizations will be less-strict
> in their interpretation of what constitutes the difference between
> "tweaking" an image and that of fundamentally changing it. The National
> Enquirer, as one example, has been guilty of this sort of thing for decades.
>
>
Would anyone with an IQ higher than warm spit consider the National
Enquirer to be journalism?
no_name
>
> Yes, but the general public still believes that "the camera doesn't lie."
Which is why the ethics of photo-journalism say you damn well better not.
http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics.html
no_name
Little or none. Both are still lies.
But the particular thread is about the ethics of post-manipulation.
John
news:wQJEg.129051$R26....@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> Are you a photographer or an artist illustrator?
I am a photographer (retired PJ and before that Newspaper Photographer),
artist and professional illustrator.
Gross adjustments for purposes of news reporting are unacceptable.
Since digital has become the predominant image capture medium, newspapers,
and in particular those that have a name in photography have become hugely
sensitive to manipulation. At one time they permitted a lot of dodging and
burning of B&W work. Today many won't tolerate even that.
It's a backlash effect.
Floyd L. Davidson
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> Now, is that dishonest? And if it is, who is being dishonest,
>> the individual who commissioned the photograph? The
>> photographer?? The agency that distributed the portrait??? The
>> publisher of the article???? Or nobody?
>>
>
>If the photograph is manipulated after taking to either add or
>remove elements, it's dishonest for PJ work. And anyone who
>knows the photograph has been manipulated and lets it pass on to
>publication is guilty of that dishonesty.
But the photograph that is staged is *just* as manipulated.
no_name
> no_name <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>>Now, is that dishonest? And if it is, who is being dishonest,
>>>the individual who commissioned the photograph? The
>>>photographer?? The agency that distributed the portrait??? The
>>>publisher of the article???? Or nobody?
>>>
>>
>>If the photograph is manipulated after taking to either add or
>>remove elements, it's dishonest for PJ work. And anyone who
>>knows the photograph has been manipulated and lets it pass on to
>>publication is guilty of that dishonesty.
>
>
> But the photograph that is staged is *just* as manipulated.
>
Depends on what "staged" means. All portraiture is staged. That doesn't
make it a manipulated image.
Floyd L. Davidson
Any more or less than using PhotoShop to manipulate the image...
no_name
> no_name <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>no_name <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Now, is that dishonest? And if it is, who is being dishonest,
>>>>>the individual who commissioned the photograph? The
>>>>>photographer?? The agency that distributed the portrait??? The
>>>>>publisher of the article???? Or nobody?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If the photograph is manipulated after taking to either add or
>>>>remove elements, it's dishonest for PJ work. And anyone who
>>>>knows the photograph has been manipulated and lets it pass on to
>>>>publication is guilty of that dishonesty.
>>>
>>>But the photograph that is staged is *just* as manipulated.
>>>
>>
>>Depends on what "staged" means. All portraiture is staged. That
>>doesn't make it a manipulated image.
>
>
> Any more or less than using PhotoShop to manipulate the image...
>
I take it you are not a working photo-journalist.