NC photographer fired for manipulating photos

[tweatherred]

I just heard about this and could not see that it had been posted here:Charlotte Observer Photographer Fired For Altering Colors. (http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002914629)

I will keep my opinion out of it for now, but was curious as to what people here think. For more links about the story as well as some discussion, check out this thread on MetaFilter (http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/53394). The links there contain some before and after examples of the photos that got him in trouble.

[elTwitcho]

What a ****ing travesty. Here it is summed up succintly

"Schneider said he did not intend to mislead readers, only to restore the actual color of the sky," the note continues. "He said the color was lost when he underexposed the photo to offset the glare of the sun."

How in the hell is it wrong to correct an image to account for photographic technique? Under this logic, exposing to the right and then adjusting in ACR would also get you fired. In fact, using RAW and adjusting in ACR at all would likely get you ****canned at that paper.

What a complete crock

[Croasdail]

The whole premise is crap... pardon my french. If a color change of the sky changes the meaning of the image... well.... heck... I don't know. I am sorry, but every shot tells a story, and includes or leaves out details. The angle from which they are shot persuads viewers opinion of the subject. When I did the Black Panthers images, I choose to shoot from a rediculasly low angle to make the subjects look more impressive. It is common technique. You can take a shot down ward to make someone look demure and a victim. Photojournalism is about telling a story... and it often comes with the perspective of the photographer. The changes this guy made did not alter the context of the story. What ever... there must be a lot more to this then this one image... this must of been that perverbial straw.

[corinto]

There is more at stake here than a simple alteration of colour or exposure.

First, the pj must or should have known that the whole media is being questioned by its treatment of the Iraqui war. It was to be expected that the line would be drawn somewhere. He imprudently crossed the line and put himself in the scapegoat position.

It is true that the photog can and could have modified the image's message by changing his shooting angle. But the fact stands that he didn't. What he did was alter the image. This can be compared to a journalist that does not like the answer he got from his interviewed. He may think that if he had phrased his question differently, he would have received another answer. But the fact is that he didn't ask differently and didn't receive another answer. He has no right to editorialize the answer he received. Maybe this is done all the time by the newspapers but that does not make it right.

We do know that editors bias the information that will be published by stressing that that may sell more papers. But this cannot set the journalist and/or pj free to do their own editorializing.

It is indeed questionable whether the pp done in this case did or did not change seriously the context of the image. But, still it seems that he should have advised his editor of what he had done.

News reporting is not about aesthetics (sb linked the NY Times about this). It is about credibility. And sometimes harsh measures have to be taken to put it back in right road. This photographer, maybe unjustly in his case, took the blame for the bigger frame.

But, then, he should have known.

A case that comes to my mind is about the freedom to shoot the NY Subway. You know that you have the right to do it. But you also know that, sometimes, you better yield that right.

[OdiN1701]

If he wants to tell a story with HIS photo, then why prevent him from doing so?

If he intended to take the shot and restore the color as it looked to the naked eye, then why not let him?

Well I've never shot for a paper so I don't know any "standard" rules. But why not allow color adjustments or white balance adjustments? Now - editing elements out, replacing things - that's a bit different from a newspaper point of view.

Still this seems a bit excessive. I'm of the point that if the picture looks better, why not run it in the paper? Meh. Whatever.

[12345Michael54321]

Admittedly, I don't know much about the realities of being a photographer for a major newspaper, but couldn't Mr. Schneider have avoided all this unpleasantness by going to his editor and saying, "I lost the color in the sky when I underexposed the photo to offset the glare of the sun. That's why the sky's brownish-gray in this picture. Here's what it looks like after I Photoshopped it - the deep red sky and more distinct halo around the sun represent what it actually looked like."

Of course, had he done this his editor would presumably have told him, "The Photoshopped picture looks completely exaggerated and unrealistic; we're running the unaltered photo."

[Woolburr]

Photojournalists are often held to the same standards as forensic photographers simply to avoid any potential complications down the road. Legally a forensic photograph must meet certain criteria to be admissible as evidence. 1. Is this photograph a fair and accurate representation of the facts at the time it was taken? And 2. Has this photograph been altered or manipulated in any way? If you are familiar with Canon products, you may have heard of the data verification featureCanon Data Verification (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012903canondvke2.asp)....which allows digital images to be entered into evidence...since there is no negative to prove that there was no manipulation. With the data verification feature, only a straight out of the camera image will pass the test.

Photojournalists are expected to present the facts as they see them and legally the images can be subpoenaed for use in a legal proceding. There are some tricks of the trade to manipulate the image to present the facts in a bolder or more subtle fashion...without altering the image itself. However; what happens to credibility when a PJ takes an image of a protester carrying a sign that says..."Joe Smith isn't Cool" and then photoshops it to read "Joe Smith is Cool"...simply because the latter supports his/her personal agenda?

Photojournalism isn't about art...it is about presenting the facts and that is why he was fired...for altering the facts. For what it is worth...I think the manipulated image is fantastic and if presented as art is very worthy of display and recognition. I think we all would love to present our images in the best possible "light"...but legally that isn't always possible.

BTW, there is a code of ethics for photojournalists...you might want to read up on it if you are thinking of becoming one. And many media outlets have stipulations in their contracts about image manipulation. I suspect the firing was a direct result of a violation of a clause of the contract. Firing him may have been a bit extreme, but in light of all the recent scandals involving altered images...he might have been a sacrificial lamb.

89

[Tom W]

Photojournalists are often held to the same standards as forensic photographers simply to avoid any potential complications down the road. Legally a forensic photograph must meet certain criteria to be admissible as evidence. 1. Is this photograph a fair and accurate representation of the facts at the time it was taken? And 2. Has this photograph been altered or manipulated in any way? ....

......Photojournalism isn't about art...it is about presenting the facts and that is why he was fired...for altering the facts. .....

I think that this really sums it up - As a reader, I expect images in newspapers and news magazines to depict a scene as close to reality as possible. Reading the paper each morning should bring the reader a depiction of events in their fullness. Report the facts, record the scene, show me what actually happened.

I don't think that is always the case, and in some publications and news organizations, I think that images are chosen solely for their support of the article which they accompany. And I believe that some publications take strong editorial license in trying to create the story rather than report it.

I don't know that Mr. Schneider meant to alter the images in a way that presented the situation in a manner outside of reality, but as a reader, I would expect that he would leave the scene as close as possible to that of the original situation. Looking at a couple of the other images presented, I would say that while his changes might have been artistically acceptable, some may have altered the scene in a manner significant enough to present a different scene to the viewer (the firemen image comes to mind).

IMHO, news supercedes aesthetics in a news publication.

[Croasdail]

Let me add a little twist here.... so he wanted to restore the intensity and colors of the background. Just like shooting sunsets, most digital cameras well compensate for fading light and overexpose to bring white levels back up giving you an underdramatic and unrepresentative shot. Very often I will deal with this by underexposing the shot by a stop or two to bring the "drama" back to the sunset. In effect this is all this chap did. So, if he had dond this in camera by adjusting exposure (or correcting white balance), when it then still be as vile action? Does the "manipulation" have to be done post, or does in camera shooting exposure adjustments count too?

[98photo]

I probably would have done the same thing if the colors were not what they were when I saw the image prior to taking it!

[tweatherred]

For anyone who is interested, the National Press Photographers Association's Code of Ethics is here (http://www.asne.org/ideas/codes/nppa.htm).

[cosworth]

Complete bunk.

[codex0]

We are all assuming that all he did was alter RAW data - he could have used a masked adjustment layer, or a masked colorizing layer - would this change your opinions? The problem is that we don't know enough about what he did - only the end result, which many of us find to be acceptable.

[Quad]

The paper should not allow digital PERIOD. With film you have the negative to prove you did not change a thing. Digital will always change stuff depending on your workflow and software.


Of course you still have to print the neg but you minimize problems like this. Other problems they will have but if they want the convenience of digital they have to accept certain other aspects as well. It is a bit hard to define when they say they accept small changes but what is small? .5% of the pixels can change or what? You either accept changes or not. They really should accept no changes. Is cropping a change though?

He had been warned before so I guess they just wanted to be free of him

[Croasdail]

Film does nothing to stop or ease this paricular issue.... correcting for color is as simple as a twist of one nob on the color head. And eventually it has to cross into the digital world. But agreed, you should look at all images with some level of questioning.

[Woolburr]

Let me add a little twist here.... so he wanted to restore the intensity and colors of the background. Just like shooting sunsets, most digital cameras well compensate for fading light and overexpose to bring white levels back up giving you an underdramatic and unrepresentative shot. Very often I will deal with this by underexposing the shot by a stop or two to bring the "drama" back to the sunset. In effect this is all this chap did. So, if he had dond this in camera by adjusting exposure (or correcting white balance), when it then still be as vile action? Does the "manipulation" have to be done post, or does in camera shooting exposure adjustments count too?

Quite simply...No.

The issue is with the manipulation of the image post-capture. Underexposure of the image by itself is not a manipulation, as it is not some form of digital darkroom trickery, but a function of the original capture process. The original image, even though it is underexposed, is still original and untouched. Once you begin making levels adjustments, cropping, resizing, etc....it becomes manipulation...because now you are altering the original image.

[Skip Souza]

I have these observations:
1. Schneider was previously reprimanded by his employer for altering photos.
2. Schneider was warned warned by his employer not to do it again.
3. Schneider did it again in spite of the warnings from his employer.
4. Schneider was terminated for disobeying his employer.
My opinions:
1. An employer has the right to terminate an employee who deliberately disobeys orders. If the orders are that repugnant then the employee should have quit on his own. There may also have been other problems between Schneider and his employer and this was just the excuse needed to sustain a termination.
2. I do believe that PJ requires the accurate capture and presentation of the image as it was, not as it looks best artistically. Art and PJ are quite different. The PJ photographer should pretty much be done after he clicks the shutter while the work of the artist has often times just begun.
3. Perhaps this is just what Schneider needed to get on with his artistic career.

Yes Cosworth, the National Photographers Code of Ethics is quite a load.

[Croasdail]

manipulations of the truth happens everyday as evidenced by the current issues with the photos from the press conference of the Secretary of State Rice while in the middle east... the images have been shown by means of video tape to be very missleading. But it happens everyday. What this guy did in this particular case was well within the bounds normally set. "color" correction happens all the time. But like Skip said, there is much much more behind this issue. This was the justification for the firing... not the reason.

[Skip Souza]

This was the justification for the firing... not the reason.

Well put Mark.

[Barb42]

The PJ knew the rules before he went into the field. If he couldn't adjust to the reality of PJ rules, then he should choose another photographic pursuit. Its not like there aren't any options out there. Its not right to freely adjust a news photo just because he wants to do it and let the newspaper pay the price for his artistic tendencies. The editors aren't really looking for art, they are looking for something real. If the public thinks they are faking it, they will look elsewhere for the news. Its about credibility.

[tweatherred]

I am kind of surprised to see so many photographers being critical of the guy who was fired. It seems to me that what he got canned for doing was no different than what reporters and editors do with words every day. Even if papers were to print raw files with some sort of standardized processing the photographer has already put himself in the story by choosing where to stand for the shot, his choice of lens, aperture, and exposure; editors, layout people, and printers all further alter the picture through resizing, cropping, and color adjustment. Some say he knew the rules of the game, but it seems to me the rules are vague at best. Certainly the firefighter image was altered too much; in fact I thought the original looked better and the addition of the black background looked artificial. Evidently I don't have much taste as I wouldn't have given the picture an award in the first place. Which brings up another thought: if photojournalism is supposed to be starkly objective, then why have awards for the best picture in the first place? Anyway, there have been some good points made on both sides here and I have enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts. I have also come across this essay (http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0203/howe.htm) on photographs and accusations of fakery/manipulation that I thought was interesting; some of you might enjoy it as well.

[Tom W]

I am kind of surprised to see so many photographers being critical of the guy who was fired. It seems to me that what he got canned for doing was no different than what reporters and editors do with words every day.

At the risk of sounding harsh, I'd say that given the level of editorializing that often appears in today's news presentation, I believe that a number of reporters and editors ought to be fired as well.

[grego]

I'm a PJ(at least through the college school systems, and have gone through the classes and read through the books).

The general, unwritten rule to Photoshop, is anything you can do in the darkroom previously with film is okay with current digital media(although there have been controversial cases where papers overreacted). There also were some papers who cloned out body parts from that Amtrack train crash in Glendale a few years ago. Not sure who, but various papers like LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, Sacbee all had their intreprations. Some did creative cropping, others showed, and one or two cloned it out.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/26/train.derailment/

Then of course there is the Times guy who took two photos and merged them, but did a bad job on it. That defintely is changing the truth, even more.

Then there's Sports Illustrated that got in trouble for extending the skies to fit a 2 page layout. Now they put a notice of that manipulation. Previously they didn't.

Keep in mind, you always distort the truth when taking a photo because you have to isolate information, frame it in your intrepretation. A wide angle for instance will make an image look bigger while a telephoto will compress things. The choice of lens can so clearly effect that. So there's always manipulation going on. It's just how much.

Pretty much, you should be able to adjust the color balances, saturation, contrast, burn/dodge, sharpen. Generally you are just trying to give the most accurate representation you witnessed.


Lets look at this photo. My choice of lens was wide angle to purposely show off the reporters. It'll also make the crowd appear to be bigger.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/7884/img5729bynumpressls3.jpg Now if I used my 70-200, i could have just focused on Andrew Bynum of the Lakers, without any reporters and the whole story of the photo might have been different.

[tweatherred]

The general, unwritten rule to Photoshop, is anything you can do in the darkroom previously with film is okay with current digital media

What I think a number of people don't acknowledge is that almost everything (perhaps everything) that can be done in Photoshop has antecedents from the darkroom. Even the names are often the same: dodge, burn, unsharp mask, cut, paste, and so on. The biggest difference is that instead of taking hours with an Exacto knife and loupe these things can be done in a few minutes with a Wacom tablet.

[grego]

The general, unwritten rule to Photoshop, is anything you can do in the darkroom previously with film is okay with current digital media

What I think a number of people don't acknowledge is that almost everything (perhaps everything) that can be done in Photoshop has antecedents from the darkroom. Even the names are often the same: dodge, burn, unsharp mask, cut, paste, and so on. The biggest difference is that instead of taking hours with an Exacto knife and loupe these things can be done in a few minutes with a Wacom tablet.

Yeah, agree. There are just some degrees that are too much.

[Hellashot]

It really sounds as if the people reprimanding the photographer and doing the firing are not in the photography/art department and more of a public relations position.

[Mike McCusker]

I don't think the issue is Schneider's alteration of this particular shot, but as Croasdail mentions, this was not the first time. He had been reprimanded on prior occasions. At some point the editor if not the readers have to start questioning every shot he submitted for publication.

[RTMiller]

"In the original photo, the sky in the photo was brownish-gray. Enhanced with photo-editing software, the sky became a deep red and the sun took on a more distinct halo," the editor's note says.

It's hard to reach a verdict without actually seeing the original picture. But if the quote above is correct, I'd fire him too.

This isn't art, it's news.

[forkball]

It's hard to reach a verdict without actually seeing the original picture. But if the quote above is correct, I'd fire him too.

This isn't art, it's news.

http://www.poynter.org/resource/45119/done.swf

Here are three additional photos under the same scrutiny. Personally, the two photos where the colors were just made more vivid don't seem bad to me. It's nothing I find to be over the top. If he was using film, I believe the same effect could be made shooting slide film vs. print film... especially Velvia. The firefighters with the background blacked out actually looked better to me with the original background, but there again, nothing that couldn't be done with a film camera IF the photographer is creative enough. In this case, the background could be blacked out with an high shutter, slow film, and a flash with high speed sync capabilities.

[RTMiller]

http://www.poynter.org/resource/45119/done.swf

Here are three additional photos under the same scrutiny. Personally, the two photos where the colors were just made more vivid don't seem bad to me.
Thanks John. I did see those three pictures and I agree that the changes in 'saturation' in the two shots is OK. Photoshopping out the background is going over the line. It's fine if your shooting for a book on photography or scenery. Not for a shot that will be used in support of a news story.

I still would like to see the original shoot of the firefighter on the ladder.

[Skip Souza]

The photographer was fired for insubordination, not post processing. His form of insubordination was PP after being told not to. I'd fire him too.

[12345Michael54321]

It's my understanding that there are many skilled and talented photographers who'd love to work for a daily metropolitan newspaper, and relatively few openings for them. This being the case, I don't blame the Charlotte Observer for refusing to put up with Mr. Schneider's refusal to obey the rules. I suspect their biggest difficulty in finding a satisfactory replacement will be sorting through the hundreds of portfolios and resumes which have probably already begun showing up from eager job applicants.

Schneider may be a gifted photographer and I wish him well in whatever he goes on to do. But I wonder if he wouldn't be happier in a job where he could be his own boss, set his own policies, and work as an independent artist - not as a journalist and newspaper employee. Of course, he'd still have to keep clients/customers happy, if he expects to earn a living from his photography. And often that's even more demanding than keeping an employer happy. But it's a different kind of challenge, and perhaps one more suited to Mr. Schneider's personality.

[grego]

It really sounds as if the people reprimanding the photographer and doing the firing are not in the photography/art department and more of a public relations position.

They are. I talked to one of the photo editors from the Sacbee. Even my own Photojournalism teacher(many years experience working on many papers and chair of the California Journalism Association), though his choices during a slide show on ethics weren't that good. A jokingly asked question was, has he ever photographed before?

And that's part of the problem.

[cosworth]

The photographer was fired for insubordination, not post processing. His form of insubordination was PP after being told not to. I'd fire him too.

I do agree with this.

But I disagree with the initial problem. Well we have to draw the line somewhere in journalism when it comes to imagery, but some people will pay the price for a line that might not be in the best spot.

Still bunk.

[Steve Parr]

He was told not to do it, and he did it anyway.

I'd have shown him the door, as well...

[corinto]

It seems to me that what he got canned for doing was no different than what reporters and editors do with words every day.

In my view, a journalist may not tell the whole story (there's no such thing as an unbiased report). A PJ does the same thing by his framing, composition and exposure.

But, neither the journalist nor the pj should be allowed to alter the facts they see/hear/capture on the scene.

And that it is done everyday in the newspapers does not in any way justify a reporter on the scene for doing his own editorializing.

[Guineh]

I have a question about the link provided above:

http://www.poynter.org/resource/45119/done.swf

This implies the retouched photos were submitted for a competition, but were not the original images that were published. If this is so, and the competition required only published images, then that would be dishonest, right?

If they were published retouched, I'd agree that blacking out the background in the firefighter's image was too much, but the other two appear only to have colors punched up a bit. That could presumably be simply to overcome the limitations of newsprint, could it not?

[DocFrankenstein]

What the **** is wrong with those ****s?

A white balance adjustment is going to do the same thing.

This is biased? And framing isn't? And cropping isn't? And the photographer being there isn't?

If you want to photograph objectively - do it from the outer space with a very quiet leica. (forgot the (C) )

[PhotosGuy]

At the risk of sounding harsh, I'd say that given the level of editorializing that often appears in today's news presentation, I believe that a number of reporters and editors ought to be fired as well. So true!
Any jpeg is processed in the cam. OTOH, after being warned, he could have used a filter & kept his job. His choice.

[MHP]

Well, it looks like they just lost themselves an awesome photographer. And one who can see with his own eye that the effect created in no way creates any side issue, and so personally makes the decision to create a winning image...... Kudos to them for now having less dramatic images in their pages from a 'stand-out' photographer to attract readers. I beleive there is always a positive to a negative, so I'm sure it will be a blessing for him and he'll move on to creating the images he likes doing and getting very well paid for it, as he should!

[PuR HART]

hmm maybe i should go put in my application?? ummm no I like to manipulate....