Photo manipulation consequences

[Savageduck]

SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are consequences to
photo-manipulation.
<
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/4238484/to-our-readers.html#storylink=misearch
>

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:19:01 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are consequences to
>photo-manipulation.
><
>http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/4238484/to-our-readers.html#storylink=misearch
>>

"To maintain the credibility of The Sacramento Bee, documentary
photographs will not be manipulated in any way that alters the
reality of the image."

In other words, what you see is what he got.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[PeterN]

On 2/5/2012 4:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are consequences to
> photo-manipulation.
> <
> http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/4238484/to-our-readers.html#storylink=misearch
>
>>
>

Adverse consequences can be expected when a manipulated image is
submitted as not manipulated.
I have been working on some altered reality images for my monthly club
competition.

--
Peter

[Darrell Larose]

Savageduck wrote:
> SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are consequences to
> photo-manipulation.
> <
> http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/4238484/to-our-readers.html#storylink=misearch
>
>>
>

I guess he's having Egrets now!

--
Darrell Larose
_____________________________________________
web: http://DarrellLarose.ca
blog: http://DarrellLarose.wordpress.com
_____________________________________________

[Robert Coe]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:00:05 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
wrote:
: On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:19:01 -0800, Savageduck

Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the image"
mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the birds,
the flowers, and the frog?

Bob

[Frank S]

"Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:4oj3j7hm0ncfrj7j2...@4ax.com...

At some level there is no "reality"; at one a little closer to What You See
Is All There Is, is
http://www.creativepro.com/article/all-photos-are-manipulated

--
Frank ess

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 17:36:25 -0800, "Frank S" <fshe...@san.rr.com>
wrote:

I doubt if that level of reality changing is what the editor of the
Sacramento Bee was objecting to. But putting in an Egret, or
Sunflowers that weren't originally there could be expected to raise
the editor's ire. So too could increasing the size of the flames in a
fire.

Clearly the editor wants the photographs to depict what was there at
the time and producing something that was literally a figment of the
photographer's imagination doesn't fit that bill.

There have been other similarly altered news photographs. I recall the
photograph of the launch of a number of Iranian intermediate range
missiles in which the trails of two which failed were edited out and
replaced by grafted in trails from other successful rockets. I know
there have been other similar examples.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Savageduck]

Exactly. This was more than the issue of the egret and the frog.
It seems that Bryan Patrick has engaged in alteration of images over
several years, in direct violation of the Sacramento Bee's policies. It
seems that the egret shot was just the final straw and embarrassment
for the SacBee. He knew the requirements needed of photographs to be
used in that newspaper, and the various competitions he entered. He
chose to be devious and to cheat. There is a big difference between
making exposure/saturation/contrast adjustments and changing the
elements of the captured scene and the relationship of subject animals,
individuals, or magnitude of physical phenomena such as flames.

It is also worth noting that along with being fired, he was stripped of
several professional level prizes and awards.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Chris Pisarra]

"Robert Coe" wrote

Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the image"
mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the
birds,
the flowers, and the frog?

The rules of the game in photojournalism are simple--no
Photoshop. period. what you see is what you get. If you break the rules,
you lose the game. What's so hard to understand?

Chris

[DaveS]

Really? No cropping?

Dave S.

[Savageduck]

This guy's problem seems to be adding stuff, not cropping.
I don't believe that adjustments for exposure/contrast/saturation are
an issue, but alterations to content to deliberately mislead the viewer
or even influence the photo editor to choose his image over that of
another photographer.

Remember, cropping is usually the photo editor's job, and he isn't
going to be fired for cropping. However if the image he has to work
with is a fabrication and does not capture the scene as it happened, I
would say that all bets are off.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Doug McDonald]

On 2/7/2012 11:25 PM, Chris Pisarra wrote:

Its VERY hard to understand! You can't use "Curves"? "Highlight-Shadow"?
Color temperature correction? Lateral CA correction?

Perspective correction for architecturals? (But you can use PC lenses?)

Doug McDonald

[Robert Coe]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:25:49 -0800, "Chris Pisarra" <Ch...@Pisarra.com> wrote:
: "Robert Coe" wrote

Since you ask, it's how you can say such a thing with a straight face. The
rules, in this case, are whatever the Sacramento Bee says they are. And their
rules contain a vague clause (quoted above) that's open to pretty much
whatever interpretation suits the interpreter. That may be simple to you, but
it's not very simple to me. Does the use of Photoshop sometimes, always, or
never "alter the reality of the image"? Well, yes and/or no. If you think you
can explain it definitively, please feel free to try.

Bob

[Savageduck]

Here is some more, and it is worth noting that this goes beyond the SacBee;
<
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/blog/melanie-turner/2012/02/sacramento-bee-fires-bryan-patrick-alter.html
>
< http://www.sfbappa.org/ >


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

...and a little more;
< http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2012/02/patrick.html >


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Ryan McGinnis]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Frank S wrote:

>
> At some level there is no "reality"; at one a little closer to What You See
> Is All There Is, is
> http://www.creativepro.com/article/all-photos-are-manipulated

Thanks for posting this link! It's a very straight-foward explanation of
common issues that photographers face with post-processing that I don't
think the general public is aware of. Good reading!

-Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd

[Ryan McGinnis]

Heh, exactly. The rules are most certainly NOT 'not photoshop'.
Photoshop is a standard program given to photojournalists. It's what's
done within Photoshop that is restricted, and the restrictions depend on
the publication and their own ethical guidelines.

--

[PeterN]

To my way of thinking the photographer has an obligation to stick within
the rules of his employer or the competition organizer. Placing an
object in the image that was not originally there is clearly
manipulation. It may be allowable in some venues, but not in others.
If a news photographer alters the image so that it is not a fair
representation of the scene he shot, it would be no different than a
print reporter writing that he saw the Duck and I climbing a mountain
and talking about our struggles.


--
Peter