measure twice, and cut once.
as a [semi] professional [working my way] in the field, stories like this scare the crap out of me.
seemingly innocent mistakes can cost you your entire career as a photojournalist in the digital age. a little snip here, a little clone there, and you've got yourself a picture-perfect . . . picture. but is it reality? is it news?
the reality of digital editing is a constant discussion [and often a heated debate] - now that we rely on digital images instead of tangible film, when does editing step beyond fixing the image to be visible and accurate (ie: adjusting levels, a little dodging and burning for correct exposure) and cross the line into false reporting (cloning out people, backgrounds, words, taking anything out or putting anything in that wasn't there originally)?
we've heard stories of 'doctored' images of war from AP photographers, but the most recent victim of public ridicule for changing a news story photo comes from the Toledo Blade in Ohio. below is a set of images of four different cover page photos, from four different photographers at the same event.
i first learned about this from the news section on the NPPA's website. if you have a minute to read the article, the entire story is detailed with corresponding links to corrections issued by the Blade and to Allan Detrich's blog.
the moral of the story?
no matter how much you want to, or think maybe this one time i won't get caught, or think you won't make the same transmission mistake he did . . . do not edit news story photos.
ever.
Comments
After 25 years in the business, you'd think that he'd realize that the "perfect picture" does not always equal the "flawless picture". The photograph that captures and immerses the viewer in the scene is always going to be better than one that is just viewed passively. To me, the blue jean ghost-legs don't detract from the photo at all - to me it makes the photo seem more candid and less posed...although the Cleveland Plain Dealer's photo seems to have the best angle where the legs seem least obtrusive to the overall mood of the piece.
e*c -- this is a great example of something I think is a fascinating topic. A friend of mine at work and I compare photographs all the time and we often speculate when something goes from a photo to "art".
We've adopted the terms "photo" for something that has been cropped (and maybe slightly color adjusted) but essentially unchanged and the term "photo-illustration" for something that's been worked over more considerably.
Reporters have a duty to keep things "real", even if it is inconvenient to the "look" or "message" of the photo. Save the edits for the coffee-table books.
I've heard of this happening. That's why I blatantly stay away from photojournalism. Part of the fun I have in photography is sprucing everything up.
Now, the argument can be made that maybe the feet walked away mid-prayer. It seems a little silly to fire a photographer over this particular picture. But the war pictures? That's an absolute No No.
"do not edit news story photos"
This was rule of thumb in my journalism classes. This is considered to be as bad as fabricating a [news] story.