Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Sports 
Thread started 22 Oct 2011 (Saturday) 22:37
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Would you clone this out?

 
MJPhotos24
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,619 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2005
Location: Attica, NY / Parrish, FL
     
Oct 23, 2011 17:39 |  #16

PixelMagic wrote in post #13293672 (external link)
Do you have a citation for the lawsuit?

Just google media can legally lie or Jane Akre, plenty of articles out there on it.


Freelance Photographer & Co-founder of Four Seam Images
Mike Janes Photography (external link) - Four Seam Images LLC (external link)
FSI is a baseball oriented photo agency and official licensee of MiLB/MLB.
@FourSeamImages (instagram/twitter)
@MikeJanesPhotography (instagram)
@MikeJanesPhotog (twitter)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ajaffe
Senior Member
Avatar
792 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2010
Location: San Diego
     
Oct 23, 2011 18:28 |  #17

And watch a film called Outfoxed. To not start a political debate I am undeclared and sway around like a wacky waving flailing inflatable arm tube man depending on issues.


www.jaffe.photo

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MakeMeShutter
Goldmember
Avatar
1,343 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Upstate New York
     
Oct 23, 2011 18:36 |  #18

I'm not a photojournalist, so I would clone it out. It detracts from the action!


New York Dragonflies (external link)
NYDragonflies.com

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ChunkyDA
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,712 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 90
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Emerald Coast, FL
     
Oct 23, 2011 18:44 |  #19

Mike and Dennis, Thanks very much. Exactly what I was looking for.


Dave
Support Search and Rescue, Get Lost (external link)
Gear list and some feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jcpoulin
Goldmember
Avatar
2,447 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Massachusetts
     
Oct 23, 2011 19:48 |  #20

So whats the difference between cloning out an errant light.....and boosting up the contrast, sharpening,. adding some vibrance/saturation, maybe a little fill light/exposure bump? Either way, you are adding or subtracting from the original subject!


1DX , 7D,16-35, 24-70 2.8II, 2.8L II, , 70-200 f2.8LII IS, 300 f2.8L IS, 500 f4 IS, 100-400L, Canon 100 2.8 macro, Canon 1.4X, 580ex, AB800X4
Canon CPS Member, PPA
www.capturingtimephoto​graphy.net (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Cascadian
Member
Avatar
68 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2011
Location: Wenatchee, WA
     
Oct 23, 2011 20:04 |  #21

It's the first thing my eyes are drawn to, so yes




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dmwierz
Goldmember
Avatar
2,376 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2005
Location: Chicago Area, IL
     
Oct 23, 2011 20:10 |  #22

jcpoulin wrote in post #13295194 (external link)
So whats the difference between cloning out an errant light.....and boosting up the contrast, sharpening,. adding some vibrance/saturation, maybe a little fill light/exposure bump? Either way, you are adding or subtracting from the original subject!

No, you most certainly are not. The dynamic range, color fidelity and sharpness of digital images are less than film and a lot less than the human eye, so it is expected that some post processing will be needed for all images from a DSLR.

The goal is to present the image as close to what "reality" looked like at the time of taking the photo. So, too much toning, sharpening or changing the color of an image is unacceptable.

http://www.nppa.org …/news/2006/08/e​thics.html (external link)

http://www.newsdesigne​r.com/archives/002578.​php (external link)

When significant digital manipulation is performed on an image shot for editorial or journalistic purposes, it's normal to add an editor's note, such as "EDITOR'S NOTE: a panorama shot made by stitching multiple images together" or "EDITOR'S NOTE: a High Dynamic Range shot made by combining multiple images taken as various exposure levels".


http://www.denniswierz​bicki.com (external link)
http://www.sportsshoot​er.com/dmwierz (external link)

Dennis "
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ajaffe
Senior Member
Avatar
792 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2010
Location: San Diego
     
Oct 23, 2011 20:33 |  #23

You can also caption as a photographic illustration.

Also this very topic came up again with the Obama kill speech by President Obama. The stills were taken after the television broadcast so they had to be noted as such in the captions.


www.jaffe.photo

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jcpoulin
Goldmember
Avatar
2,447 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Massachusetts
     
Oct 23, 2011 21:48 |  #24

So in playing devil's advocate here.....the photo in question here is a reflexion of a bus which is in the distance....and is in no way part of the subject matter. If a flash was not used, would not have shown up, or if the bus was parked at a different angle, would not have occurred. This is clearly different than changing a photo aspect which involves the picture intent/time.
To say that a "certain level of post processing is expected" is really a cop out excuse. Comparing it to film has no baring on capturing to moment in a truthful fashion. To be technical....as soon as the picture is converted to jpeg....there is already a certain level of processing which is different than film,and what truly occurred. We use cropping to eliminate objects as well...which presents things differently than what the human eye sees....that is standard in the photography world. I take a picture....there are 5 guys playing a sport....the guy nearest the edge looks funny, or is the official/ref in the background...we crop him out by resizing...have we not changed what was present at the time of the action?


1DX , 7D,16-35, 24-70 2.8II, 2.8L II, , 70-200 f2.8LII IS, 300 f2.8L IS, 500 f4 IS, 100-400L, Canon 100 2.8 macro, Canon 1.4X, 580ex, AB800X4
Canon CPS Member, PPA
www.capturingtimephoto​graphy.net (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tim ­ S
Goldmember
Avatar
1,488 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2006
Location: Michigan
     
Oct 23, 2011 22:36 |  #25

jcpoulin wrote in post #13295747 (external link)
So in playing devil's advocate here.....the photo in question here is a reflexion of a bus which is in the distance....and is in no way part of the subject matter. If a flash was not used, would not have shown up, or if the bus was parked at a different angle, would not have occurred. This is clearly different than changing a photo aspect which involves the picture intent/time.
To say that a "certain level of post processing is expected" is really a cop out excuse. Comparing it to film has no baring on capturing to moment in a truthful fashion. To be technical....as soon as the picture is converted to jpeg....there is already a certain level of processing which is different than film,and what truly occurred. We use cropping to eliminate objects as well...which presents things differently than what the human eye sees....that is standard in the photography world. I take a picture....there are 5 guys playing a sport....the guy nearest the edge looks funny, or is the official/ref in the background...we crop him out by resizing...have we not changed what was present at the time of the action?

In my opinion.....I shoot in RAW and output to JPG-same as shooting film and printing. Developing(contrast, sharpening, cropping ) is similar in both analog and digital processes. However, cloning is not. Yes it can be done with film and digital but in photojournalism once you start adding/subtracting things it becomes a slippery slope. All of a sudden everyone wonders if it is "real" or "photoshopped". If you are shooting for news content, it is different than shooting as a creative artist.


Tim
Equipment

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dmwierz
Goldmember
Avatar
2,376 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2005
Location: Chicago Area, IL
     
Oct 24, 2011 18:58 |  #26

jcpoulin wrote in post #13295747 (external link)
So in playing devil's advocate here.....the photo in question here is a reflexion of a bus which is in the distance....and is in no way part of the subject matter. If a flash was not used, would not have shown up, or if the bus was parked at a different angle, would not have occurred. This is clearly different than changing a photo aspect which involves the picture intent/time.
To say that a "certain level of post processing is expected" is really a cop out excuse. Comparing it to film has no baring on capturing to moment in a truthful fashion. To be technical....as soon as the picture is converted to jpeg....there is already a certain level of processing which is different than film,and what truly occurred. We use cropping to eliminate objects as well...which presents things differently than what the human eye sees....that is standard in the photography world. I take a picture....there are 5 guys playing a sport....the guy nearest the edge looks funny, or is the official/ref in the background...we crop him out by resizing...have we not changed what was present at the time of the action?

Cropping only affects the field of view…it is no more altering the original scene than changing the point of focus or opening up your lens to minimize the depth of field.

Look, I couldn't care less WHAT anyone does…I've posted what is universally accepted as ethical guidelines for photo journalists (and guidelines I, for one, choose to follow), but we all have the power of free-will, meaning we all have the power to hose up our photography careers in any way we choose. Your call.


http://www.denniswierz​bicki.com (external link)
http://www.sportsshoot​er.com/dmwierz (external link)

Dennis "
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Amadauss
Senior Member
Avatar
706 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 143
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa
     
Oct 24, 2011 19:17 as a reply to  @ Tim S's post |  #27

I am very surprised the issue of pulling a yellow light out of the background when it has nothing to do with the shot or in any way if removed will cause an issue of any kind in reference to what is actually the purpose of the picture other then to show a football player running with the ball and the intensity with which he is doing it and an errant over-bright light showing up on the photo.

Anyone that sites Ethics of Photography or journalistic integrity to justify keeping that yellowish nightmare in the photo needs to get a reality check. JCPoulin makes a great case in an earlier post of all photos today having some type of adjustments made to them. Would that not classify as being tampered with? The gentleman that was found errant in a post with removing a white chord, or feet in a picture (should have just cropped it), should never have been brought to task for those. Adding the basketball to make the shot look better was just a mistake and it looked fine without it.

But who am I to say what is right. So, from the NPPA's own Web site Here is one of the codes photographers should follow:
Code of Ethics

Visual journalists and those who manage visual news productions are accountable for upholding the following standards in their daily work:

6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.


Here it seems to state editing to maintain the integrity of the image is allowed. Changing this photo will not mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects in this instance.

Pull that awful light!


1-1Dx II 1-5D Mark 4, 3-5D Mark III, 5D Mark II, 2-7D's, 70D, canon 70-200 2.8 L IS II, 24-70L II, 85 1.8, 85 1.2, 50mm, 135 mm F2 L, 17-40 , 24-105, Sigma 35 Art and 18-35 1.8, 600 EX's, Elinchrom RX and Phottix 500 strobes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dmwierz
Goldmember
Avatar
2,376 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2005
Location: Chicago Area, IL
     
Oct 24, 2011 19:53 |  #28

Amadauss wrote in post #13300316 (external link)
I am very surprised the issue of pulling a yellow light out of the background when it has nothing to do with the shot or in any way if removed will cause an issue of any kind in reference to what is actually the purpose of the picture other then to show a football player running with the ball and the intensity with which he is doing it and an errant over-bright light showing up on the photo.

Anyone that sites Ethics of Photography or journalistic integrity to justify keeping that yellowish nightmare in the photo needs to get a reality check. JCPoulin makes a great case in an earlier post of all photos today having some type of adjustments made to them. Would that not classify as being tampered with? The gentleman that was found errant in a post with removing a white chord, or feet in a picture (should have just cropped it), should never have been brought to task for those. Adding the basketball to make the shot look better was just a mistake and it looked fine without it.

But who am I to say what is right. So, from the NPPA's own Web site Here is one of the codes photographers should follow:
Code of Ethics

Visual journalists and those who manage visual news productions are accountable for upholding the following standards in their daily work:

6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.


Here it seems to state editing to maintain the integrity of the image is allowed. Changing this photo will not mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects in this instance.

Pull that awful light!

Since you selectively quoted the NPPA Code of Ethics, did you even bother to read all the other cases on their site, like the one linked to earlier?

http://www.nppa.org …_events/...08/e​thics.html (external link)

Like I said, feel free to start down whichever slippery slope you choose. I, for one, after 5 years of visiting POTN, have grown weary of the "know it all" attitude that has taken over this board in the last year or so. It seems nobody left here is interested in actually learning anything, as evidenced by the objection to anyone giving any feedback other than "Nice shots. What lens?". I give credit to the ChunkyDA, since at least he was willing to consider the opinions of some folks with a little more experience than he has.


http://www.denniswierz​bicki.com (external link)
http://www.sportsshoot​er.com/dmwierz (external link)

Dennis "
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MJPhotos24
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,619 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2005
Location: Attica, NY / Parrish, FL
     
Oct 24, 2011 19:57 |  #29

Amadauss wrote in post #13300316 (external link)
I am very surprised the issue of pulling a yellow light out of the background when it has nothing to do with the shot or in any way if removed will cause an issue of any kind in reference to what is actually the purpose of the picture other then to show a football player running with the ball and the intensity with which he is doing it and an errant over-bright light showing up on the photo.

Anyone that sites Ethics of Photography or journalistic integrity to justify keeping that yellowish nightmare in the photo needs to get a reality check. JCPoulin makes a great case in an earlier post of all photos today having some type of adjustments made to them. Would that not classify as being tampered with? The gentleman that was found errant in a post with removing a white chord, or feet in a picture (should have just cropped it), should never have been brought to task for those. Adding the basketball to make the shot look better was just a mistake and it looked fine without it.

But who am I to say what is right. So, from the NPPA's own Web site Here is one of the codes photographers should follow:
Code of Ethics

Visual journalists and those who manage visual news productions are accountable for upholding the following standards in their daily work:

6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.


Here it seems to state editing to maintain the integrity of the image is allowed. Changing this photo will not mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects in this instance.

Pull that awful light!

Did you just quote that without reading it?

What they're talking about is adding to or altering an image - which would be removing objects from it, you'd be misrepresenting the fact that there was a bus right there with a reflector - it would misrepresent the subjects in this instance pretty easily, I mean it's written right there in the part you quoted but you missed it entirely.

Look up when Hillary Clinton was removed from a photo along with all women in the photo, the subject of the photo was the situation room and the killing of Bin Laden - is that OK? Of course it's not. If you knew anything about photojournalism you'd know it's not alright to remove objects like you're suggesting and extremely scary to think someone who wants to get into PJ work would read this and think it's good advice when it's not even close to that.

As for what JC has said, cropping an image is nothing more than changing your focal point, what you're looking at...and YES if you cropped an image to distort what was really happening then that would also be considered unethical behavior in many editors opinions if it went as far as to sway the entire story the photograph tells. Same as in video, just look up the lying idiot James O'Keefe who calls himself a journalist but is no more than a hack taking bits and pieces of video out of context, same can be done in a photo, and the same results = unethical.

Editing it in other ways is just like they used to do in the darkroom, trying to make it look like what you actually saw - when that flash went off guess what, you and the camera saw that reflection so it stays. Changing other things because it's darker/lighter or doesn't have the color of what you actually saw is not changing what you saw, it's making the image appear to be what the eyes saw, you're changing it to be original instead of fake.

Now, it's already been said, if it's a print for a parent and they want it removed then so be it - remove it and no big deal because you're doing it at the request of the buyer who is using it for personal reasons (hanging it on their wall, scrapbook, whatever). If it's going to a news source or your portfolio then it stays in because it was there when you captured it and that's the ethics photojournalists live by.


Freelance Photographer & Co-founder of Four Seam Images
Mike Janes Photography (external link) - Four Seam Images LLC (external link)
FSI is a baseball oriented photo agency and official licensee of MiLB/MLB.
@FourSeamImages (instagram/twitter)
@MikeJanesPhotography (instagram)
@MikeJanesPhotog (twitter)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sledhed
Goldmember
Avatar
2,510 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2005
Location: Crete, IL.
     
Oct 24, 2011 20:18 |  #30

dmwierz wrote in post #13300505 (external link)
Like I said, feel free to start down whichever slippery slope you choose. I, for one, after 5 years of visiting POTN, have grown weary of the "know it all" attitude that has taken over this board in the last year or so. It seems nobody left here is interested in actually learning anything, as evidenced by the objection to anyone giving any feedback other than "Nice shots. What lens?". I give credit to the ChunkyDA, since at least he was willing to consider the opinions of some folks with a little more experience than he has.

Well said DW, I totally agree with what you have said here.


Chris
Gear List | Website (external link) | Sports Sample Pictures (external link) | Four Seam Images (external link)

If you’re good at something, never do it for free. - The Joker

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

10,127 views & 0 likes for this thread
Would you clone this out?
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Sports 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mjwm
1129 guests, 241 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.