Spotty PJ photos
Alan Browne
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?index=24
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Mark Thomas
>
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?index=24
>
>
>
Perhaps they are just bugs flying by near the camera... (or pigs!)
Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that
image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a bit
funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that, and not
that it really matters in the context.
(O:
Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit of
image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a very
slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes, then...
It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing safeguards -
I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.
Poldie
> Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit of
> image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a very
> slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes, then...
>
> It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing safeguards -
> I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.
Starts with removing dust, ends up making the picture `better` via the
clone tool:
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only=
Mark Thomas
(O:
Yes, that example sprang to mind as I was typing my reply.. When I
first saw that image, I was simply dumbstruck. It looks like what
happens the very first time someone encounters Photoshop and the clone
tool - "ooh, look at what *that* does!".
It just defies belief that someone could even be bothered to save that
image, let alone submit it (accidentally or otherwise) for publication
so it would actually be seen by anyone else.., let alone that any
editor, even if blind drunk, would let it get through.
David J Taylor
> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?index=24
>>
> Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that
> image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a
> bit funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that,
> and not that it really matters in the context.
They must have changed the index - I see no firefighters.....
David
Mark Thomas
Actually, no, it's still there - try here for the original pic:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?index=26
and there's several other examples of dust spots, eg:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?index=17
Browsing through these reveals quite a few good-to-exceptional images,
especially below about no.15, but they'll prolly shift them again...
David J Taylor
[]
> Actually, no, it's still there - try here for the original pic:
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?index=26
>
> and there's several other examples of dust spots, eg:
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?index=17
>
> Browsing through these reveals quite a few good-to-exceptional images,
> especially below about no.15, but they'll prolly shift them again...
Thanks, Mark. Yes, I see what you mean, although in such dusty
circumstances it's hardly surprising.
Look to be quite bad fires....
Thanks,
David
Robert Coe
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
: Alan Browne wrote:
: >
: >
: > http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photogallery?index=24
: >
: >
: >
:
: Perhaps they are just bugs flying by near the camera... (or pigs!)
:
: Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that
: image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a bit
: funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that, and not
: that it really matters in the context.
I think the foreground figures are simply out of focus. These pictures aren't
so hot (pun not intended, but recognized), and the one Alan selected may be
the worst of the bunch. But the photographer(s) were in a danger area and
obviously in a hurry, so I'd cut them some slack. The amateurs at the
Minnesota bridge collapse a few months ago did a better job, but they had
neither danger nor time constraints to contend with.
Bob
MI
On 7/5/08 11:30 PM, in article g4popa$prc$1...@registered.motzarella.org, "Mark
Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
What you list as the original pic is not the one I saw. It was as Alan
Browne stated in his post. Could be they automatically update the pictures.
--
Martha
Vagabond
That is also puzzling me. It is as though someone has made a clumsy attempt
to discredit the photographer.
I am new here, most people would not know me or have seen any of my profile
pages, but as a journalist of thirty plus years standing, I do not know of
any photographer with sufficient credibility to be published who isn't
extremely well experienced in photo manipulation. There is definitely
something untoward about that image. I am not a photojournalist by the way,
I use a photographer if I know beforehand that I will need one, but have
always carried a camera "just in case". There have been a lot of "just in
case" occasions over the years. Until recently it has been a Nikon SLR,
with a couple of primes and a 28-200 fitted. Plus an MD-12.
I started with an FT and for the last couple of decades it has been a less
than top of the line FE. It has never let me down so I never upgraded it. I
have recently made the switch to digital and am not really happy so far, to
the extent where I am still trying various cameras hoping to find something
with which I feel more confident. I have just purchased a Lumix DMC-FZ50
after seeing the results that one of my daughters has been achieving. It is
a very versatile camera, fast to get into action, amazing lens for such a
low cost camera, and the image stabilisation is remarkable. I prefer it to
either the Rebel or the Olympus E500 that I have been using to date. But
then my requirements are probably very different to many amateur or
professional photographers. I am not looking for a beautiful shot, just a
clearly defined graphical illustration. I often need to get a clean shot
very quickly, often without knowing beforehand what focal length to expect.
You don't know if they are going to come out of that door a metre away, or
the one at the other end of the block. That sort of thing.
The Panasonic has its limitations, as do all digitals, particularly small
sensor digitals so I still carry the Nikon for those occasions when
something faster is required.
I am well versed in Photoshop, right from Adobe's very early days. For
years I would shoot film and then scan (drum scanner) it into a digital
image for final processing. I am not alone in that, while everyone did in
the early days, now that DSLRs have made such advances it is mostly just us
old dinosaurs who are still doing it. My favourite photographer also still
uses a mix of film and digital on assignments. But then he is around my age
and we have worked together for decades.
This is just a little bit of introduction as I think that I might stay with
some of these groups for a while, but back to the thread, my other concern
is that not only a supposedly experienced photographer produced such a
pathetic image, but that it passed all editing and proofreading, that it
was actually published. That is amazing. There has to be more to the story.
Regards
Tony
Alan Browne
Every major paper and news service has a standard published and you can
find them online if you dig around. For anything newsworthy
manipulation is verbotten and there have been cases of PJ's fired for it
(as discussed rpe35mm some time ago). OTOH, digitally removing spots
would be allowed.
Alan Browne
I didn't select that to denigrate anyone, least of all the PJ in question.
You can imaging the guy in windy, dusty, smoky conditions and changing
lenses. He is bound to get spots when he shoots high DOF.
In most of the photos, the same spots would not even show as they would
be lost in the clutter of the non-sky BG.
Alan Browne
> That is also puzzling me. It is as though someone has made a clumsy
> attempt to discredit the photographer.
See my other reply to Robert Coe. That was certainly not the intent.
And as a self declared "newbie" here you should not even make such
hedged declarations.
Alan Browne
> concern is that not only a supposedly experienced photographer produced
> such a pathetic image, but that it passed all editing and proofreading,
> that it was actually published. That is amazing. There has to be more to
> the story.
Sheesh! The fires in California at Big Sure, near Santa Barbra and
Modesta are fast moving news. The photos in the series in the LA Times
are not "print" selected for the paper runs but to present a series of
photos outlining the story for web browsing. Most newspapers do similar
things with important events. The story is more important than specific
weaknesses of various photos.
As it is, the photo I originally indexed is not the one currently
indexed. I meant to draw attention to the obvious dust/smoke on the
camera sensor.
Alan Browne
> Modesta are fast moving news. The photos in the series in the LA Times
Ooops: meant Goleta, not Modesto.
Vagabond
> Vagabond > wrote:
>
>> That is also puzzling me. It is as though someone has made a clumsy
>> attempt to discredit the photographer.
>
>
> See my other reply to Robert Coe. That was certainly not the intent.
> And as a self declared "newbie" here you should not even make such
> hedged declarations.
What on earth are you on about?
Hedged?
What I said was quite clear, there was no hedging involved.
I responded to the discussion on this image.
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only=
I was agreeing with Mark Thomas' comments, not anything that you had said.
Threads do tend to wander a little, perhaps it would behove you to check
what a person is responding to before attempting to remonstrate with them.
As for the rest, I am not a "self declared newbie" at all, I have been
involved with usenet since its inception and ARPANET before that. Like many
of the old hands I started with limping into the backbone with a 300 baud
accoustic modem and Unix. Close to three decades from "newbie" status.
I simply took the opportunity to give some introductory detail about myself.
Regards
Tony
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Vagabond > wrote:
>>
>>> That is also puzzling me. It is as though someone has made a clumsy
>>> attempt to discredit the photographer.
>>
>>
>> See my other reply to Robert Coe. That was certainly not the intent.
>> And as a self declared "newbie" here you should not even make such
>> hedged declarations.
>
>
> What on earth are you on about?
>
> Hedged?
>
> What I said was quite clear, there was no hedging involved.
>
> I responded to the discussion on this image.
> http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only=
>
> I was agreeing with Mark Thomas' comments, not anything that you had
> said. Threads do tend to wander a little, perhaps it would behove you to
> check what a person is responding to before attempting to remonstrate
> with them.
>
> As for the rest, I am not a "self declared newbie" at all, I have been
Your words: "I am new here,"
> involved with usenet since its inception and ARPANET before that. Like
> many of the old hands I started with limping into the backbone with a
> 300 baud accoustic modem and Unix. Close to three decades from "newbie"
> status.
wrt this ng. You had no cause to say "... attempt to discredit the
photographer." Your words. Your assumptions. Your hedging.
As to your long and extinguished usenet experience, please turn up your
amps while I yawn loudly. Such claims are no more impressive than the
photographer who has been turning out 1 year of bad photos 30 years in a
row.
> I simply took the opportunity to give some introductory detail about
> myself.
Great.
You have 1 week to contribute a photo to the current [SI]:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/fraud
This is not mandatory, of course.
Cheers and welcome aboard.
Alan Browne
They have unfortunately. But if you go thru the set that is there right
now, you will see at least two phots with dust spots.
Allodoxaphobia
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Modesta are fast moving news. The photos in the series in the LA Times
>
> Ooops: meant Goleta, not Modesto.
And, you meant "Big Sur".
Mark Thomas
> Vagabond > wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> Vagabond > wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is also puzzling me. It is as though someone has made a clumsy
>>>> attempt to discredit the photographer.
>>>
>>> See my other reply to Robert Coe. That was certainly not the intent.
>>> And as a self declared "newbie" here you should not even make such
>>> hedged declarations.
>>
>> What on earth are you on about? Hedged?
>>
>> What I said was quite clear, there was no hedging involved.
>>
>> I responded to the discussion on this image.
>> http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only=
>>
>> I was agreeing with Mark Thomas' comments, not anything that you had
>
> ...You had no cause to say "... attempt to discredit the
Alan, did you get out of bed on the wrong side? Re-read the thread MUCH
more carefully, and you will see it had wandered off your original theme
and Vagabond did *not* direct those words at you, nor were they about
the images you posted.
He was referring to the rather famous and very poorly photoshopped
images by Adnan Hajj, eg:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1678653/posts
(Note, I just grabbed that as the first link I found, didn't read it, am
not endorsing content... (O:)
.. and he wondered, as I did, how on earth *those* images (not the Big
Sur ones!!) could possibly get to press, unless there was a story behind
the story...
So when he referred to the 'clumsy attempt to discredit', it was most
definitely not aimed at you. (And I can't see any bad attribution that
would make you think otherwise...)
Sheeesh indeed!
Alan Browne
Sure did.
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Vagabond > wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> Vagabond > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That is also puzzling me. It is as though someone has made a clumsy
>>>>> attempt to discredit the photographer.
>>>>
>>>> See my other reply to Robert Coe. That was certainly not the
>>>> intent. And as a self declared "newbie" here you should not even
>>>> make such hedged declarations.
>>>
>>> What on earth are you on about? Hedged?
>>>
>>> What I said was quite clear, there was no hedging involved.
>>>
>>> I responded to the discussion on this image.
>>> http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only=
>>>
>>> I was agreeing with Mark Thomas' comments, not anything that you had
>>> said....
>>
>> ...You had no cause to say "... attempt to discredit the
>> photographer." Your words. Your assumptions. Your hedging.
>
> Alan, did you get out of bed on the wrong side? Re-read the thread MUCH
> more carefully, and you will see it had wandered off your original theme
You're absolutely right Mark.
Appologies Vagabond. Thing is I read the e-mail in series rather than
as a tree, which is no excuse.
Vagabond
Not a problem. It is nice to have someone courteous enough to apologise,
that is becoming a rare thing.
Regards
Tony
Mark Thomas
I second that - well done Alan. (I too have been guilty of misreading
threads..., but I try to take it on the chin!)
Alan Browne
I'd rather scrap it out. That way I get plonked by the most miserable
a-holes and you find out where the best water is.
Alan Browne
De nada and indeed.
Cheers,
Alan
Poldie
> Yes, that example sprang to mind as I was typing my reply.. When I
> first saw that image, I was simply dumbstruck. It looks like what
> happens the very first time someone encounters Photoshop and the clone
> tool - "ooh, look at what *that* does!".
>
> It just defies belief that someone could even be bothered to save that
> image, let alone submit it (accidentally or otherwise) for publication
> so it would actually be seen by anyone else.., let alone that any
> editor, even if blind drunk, would let it get through.
Perhaps there should be an annual prize for the best one?
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/07/iranian_missile_tests_not_what.html
Alan Browne
Saw that today (NYT) and I just posted it as well...