Would you clone this out?

Wow Phil, I think mjHession captures the idea:

mjHession wrote in post #13302687
Okay, I've read this thread, I accept the whole don't change images photojournalism thing (I personally think it is a bit on the extreme conservative side of what should be allowed, but I get the slippery slope concept and I accept it as the way things are). However, if the photo was for a parent not a newspaper, we'd all be comfortable with cloning it out right?

I'd bet you shot that for a parent of their smiling child, you have no reference that they are even medal winners. IMHO, as presented, yours is not photojournalism.

===

http://www.nppa.org …ews/2007/04/tol​edo01.html
What I don't get is if he knew not to edit it, why did he not just crop that part of the image out?

Hannya wrote in post #13302867
http://www.nppa.org …ews/2007/04/tol​edo01.html
What I don't get is if he knew not to edit it, why did he not just crop that part of the image out?

Because if he cropped it out, that would mean cropping out #19...which would have caused just as much of a stir as editing out the legs.

Photojurnilsum is a lot different then sport shooting. I'll never forget when a sports editor commented on my images being too tight. I was like, what? You said you wanted action, action is tight. He said true I want action, but I want images that tell a story. Tight works for features on a player, but not when telling the story of the game. That was the big eye opener for me, as all I hear is shoot tight and crop tighter. A bit OT, but a bus in the back ground tell's a story...no matter how distracting it its. It sets the stage of where it is played, what level of play and so on. Just as that pair of legs told a story by itself.

Since it is ok to dodge and burn, do you think it would be alright to burn the very bright image to something less offensive? That would certainly be something that could be done in the darkroom with film.

A bit OT, but a bus in the back ground tell's a story...no matter how distracting it its. It sets the stage of where it is played, what level of play and so on. Just as that pair of legs told a story by itself.
_______________
Like anyone here could tell this came from a bus!

Zivnuska wrote in post #13302736
This is a photo of the podium finishers of the 1600 meter run at a high school track meet. I used cloning (a spot cloning/healing tool) to alter the image. Is that kindness to a teenage girl or unethical journalistic manipulation?

That may sound trivial or flippant but it is not intended to be, nor is this a theoretical example.

1. SOOC

2.

If that were my daughter in the middle, I would have thanked you to the end of time for what you did. I took many photos of my daughter swimming in high school about 5 years ago and one of her teammates had a very bad acne problem. I always touched up a bit. Her parents were always grateful. She had enough to worry about growing up in high school without having pictures seen which might cause one to focus on her facial issues and cause possibly more issues for her. Today, this girls acne is gone and long forgotten. So I think I did the right thing.

I might have even gone a step further and moved some of the hair flying in her face but the adjusted shot look great.

dwarrenr wrote in post #13302947
Because if he cropped it out, that would mean cropping out #19...which would have caused just as much of a stir as editing out the legs.

Photojurnilsum is a lot different then sport shooting. I'll never forget when a sports editor commented on my images being too tight. I was like, what? You said you wanted action, action is tight. He said true I want action, but I want images that tell a story. Tight works for features on a player, but not when telling the story of the game. That was the big eye opener for me, as all I hear is shoot tight and crop tighter. A bit OT, but a bus in the back ground tell's a story...no matter how distracting it its. It sets the stage of where it is played, what level of play and so on. Just as that pair of legs told a story by itself.

Well, I'm obviously not cut out for that line of work, 'cos I think the bus needs cloning out to focus on the 'story' in the picture. The bus isn't part of the story, its background clutter. And since we know that you can't trust anything printed in the press, and that celebs have their faces, bums and anything else retouched, why would it matter THAT much? For one, I don't mind the disembodied legs in the other picture. That's a 'so what' moment. After all, today's paper, tomorrow recycle bin.

dwarrenr wrote in post #13302710
Yes, that is what they have been saying all along:

Okay, I guess I just skimmed the thread

dmwierz wrote in post #13300505
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.

I can't believe in another thread Amadauss would post "I am still trying to learn the camera. In the beginning with all my pics, I would just set the camera up for sports mode and go from there." And yet in this thread is arguing Photojournalist ethics with two established and successful shooters like Dennis and Mike. SMH. Since you, Amadauss also posted this "Enjoying this site and learning a great deal from many", why don't you listen and learn. If seasoned photographers are being fired for what you deem to be acceptable and correct, maybe in fact, it isn't ethical or correct.

Hannya wrote in post #13303440
Well, I'm obviously not cut out for that line of work, 'cos I think the bus needs cloning out to focus on the 'story' in the picture. The bus isn't part of the story, its background clutter. And since we know that you can't trust anything printed in the press, and that celebs have their faces, bums and anything else retouched, why would it matter THAT much? For one, I don't mind the disembodied legs in the other picture. That's a 'so what' moment. After all, today's paper, tomorrow recycle bin.

The bus is a part of the story. As it was said a couple of posts before, it adds context to where the game was played and what type of game it was. If you cannot grasp that concept then I don't know what to tell you.

Celebs don't have their faces retouched in paparazzi style shots. For commercial ads sure, but nothing that carries a caption similar to: ________ poses for a shot on the red carpet prior to the opening of __movie__ in ____location_____.

PixelMagic wrote in post #13302708
I'm fairly familiar with the case but I went back and read it on Lexis/Nexis and I saw no mention of Fox News in any of the documents. What I did see was Fox 13 Tampa, a TV station owned by Fox Broadcasting. Those two entities are certainly not the same although they are owned by the same parent company. It would be analogous to saying local ABC stations and ESPN are the same since they are both owned by Disney.

In any event Fox News is a cable broadcaster and the FCC is only authorized to regulate over-the-air broadcasters; it have no statutory authority over cable channels. So your comment "Yes it was Faux News that got sued, FCC policy was not a "law", so they can lie all they want." is inaccurate on several levels.

I agree with the posts by Mike Janes about journalistic integrity preventing the editing of a photo to the extent that objects/items/people are removed. It's part of the impromptu, "live" nature of a real time photograph taken during an event that separates it from a staged or studio shoot and it's important to maintain that level of integrity for news purposes. I've learned a lot from more than one of Mike's posts on this forum. That being said, I do think that the "Faux" News & James O'Keefe references were off topic & used more for political purposes than to support the argument for photo journalistic integrity, especially given the lack of accuracy. The other stories/links that Mike referenced were spot-on & effectively illustrated the problem with altering photographs used for journalistic purposes. I truly appreciate this thread and these kind of discussions because I learn a lot from them & I hope they stay free of distortion because of politics.

The photo's I take aren't for journalistic purposes & I have no problem altering things like annoying lights, etc., but even then if I provide the photographs to someone, I provide both the altered & original & let them decide which they prefer for their purposes.

(sic)

I don't agree. The best sports photographers ARE photojournalists…yes, they take action shots, but the best action shots tell a story far more involved and deeper than simply catching the moment. This applies to youth sports photography through the pros.

These photo's pull you in…make you want to spend time looking at the shot, thinking about the moment, the subjects, the game, the conflict, the intensity, wondering what happened next, or what happened just before…make you wonder "how in the WORLD did he shoot this?".

Sometimes this means getting tight, other times it's best to shoot wide. This is part of developing the photographer's "eye" that you may have heard about. It also involves knowing when to move if there are distractions in the background, including annoying yellow lights.

PixelMagic wrote in post #13302708
I'm fairly familiar with the case but I went back and read it on Lexis/Nexis and I saw no mention of Fox News in any of the documents. What I did see was Fox 13 Tampa, a TV station owned by Fox Broadcasting. Those two entities are certainly not the same although they are owned by the same parent company. It would be analogous to saying local ABC stations and ESPN are the same since they are both owned by Disney.

In any event Fox News is a cable broadcaster and the FCC is only authorized to regulate over-the-air broadcasters; it have no statutory authority over cable channels. So your comment "Yes it was Faux News that got sued, FCC policy was not a "law", so they can lie all they want." is inaccurate on several levels.

You should probably check who paid for the attorney's and defended them in court - it was not Fox News 13 Tampa, it was Fox News Corp that was defending their subsidy according to a few articles I've found. To say Fox News 13 Tampa (or any local subsidy) and Fox News National are not the same entity is simply not true, where do you think station directors get their "direction" from?

Now if you're comparing Fox News vs Fox Sports vs Fox Broadcasting in general there's some argument to be made that the news branch is not overlooking the broadcasting branch and so on, but the News side local vs national is pushing it and not how it works in the real world of broadcasting. ESPNU, ESPN Classic, ESPN2 are definitely the same company as ESPN and not 100% independent just because of different names or places.

Fox News and their affiliates are all in one, just like any other station.

As for the FCC comment, think you missed the point. Faux News, the local station as that was not meant to say the national channel as you took it, did get sued and lost the first round but won an appeal because the local station did not break a law by hiding the truth thus making the whistle blower law in FL obsolete. Without trying to get into the case too much as it has NOTHING to do with this thread, short version so if something comes off wrong just search the case and learn it.

However, none of that means crap considering the national channel is the overseer of all local channels and that's where they get their direction from, where do you think it comes from, what are they independent? Yea, right...

Zivnuska wrote in post #13302736
This is a photo of the podium finishers of the 1600 meter run at a high school track meet. I used cloning (a spot cloning/healing tool) to alter the image. Is that kindness to a teenage girl or unethical journalistic manipulation?

That may sound trivial or flippant but it is not intended to be, nor is this a theoretical example.

You openly admit you're changing her appearance to try and be "nice" and make her look different than she actually does, so yes you'd be fired immediately - it's not our job to make someone look the way we want them to look in a newsworthy photo for editorial usage.

jdnan wrote in post #13304968
I do think that the "Faux" News & James O'Keefe references were off topic & used more for political purposes than to support the argument for photo journalistic integrity, especially given the lack of accuracy..

Well, someone else brought up the Fox News story that they can legally lie, let's be straight about that. It shows that journalistic ethics are not only in photos but video and reporting to, it's not just photographers and photography that have these standards. Some people have no ethics like these two entities, it does not make it right - and neither does altering an image to make it how you wish it looked instead of how it actually looked. Doesn't matter if it's images, video, audio, anything - there's a right and wrong way in all forms of journalism. Spelling Faux, may have gotten me there though!

Not sure what you mean by lack of accuracy...? It's pretty accurate the guy lied through unethical edits calling himself a journalist.

dmwierz wrote in post #13305646
(sic)

I don't agree. The best sports photographers ARE photojournalists…yes, they take action shots, but the best action shots tell a story far more involved and deeper than simply catching the moment. This applies to youth sports photography through the pros.

These photo's pull you in…make you want to spend time looking at the shot, thinking about the moment, the subjects, the game, the conflict, the intensity, wondering what happened next, or what happened just before…make you wonder "how in the WORLD did he shoot this?".

Sometimes this means getting tight, other times it's best to shoot wide. This is part of developing the photographer's "eye" that you may have heard about. It also involves knowing when to move if there are distractions in the background, including annoying yellow lights.

Yes sir they are...

I am not a photojournalist and can't hold the camera strap of the pros in this forum, but here goes...

Let’s consider the idea that sometimes the camera itself is creating an artifact, or even a portion of the image, that observers of the scene did not see. I’m not using the word “see” as in “notice”; but as in physically did not see.

If the flash had caused red-eye in the ball carrier, wouldn’t it be mandatory that you remove it? In fact, leaving the red-eye in the photo would be a form of editorializing in itself. You’ve given the player a devil-like appearance that no one at the event saw – it was camera induced. In the example at the top, again, only the camera “saw” that reflection. No one at the event physically saw it. (If you didn’t tell me it was a bus, I wouldn’t have known, btw. Not sure that matters though.) People who attended the game and saw the photo might think the yellow blobs were added after the fact since they wouldn’t recall seeing bright yellow lights in that shape during the game. A photo taken without flash would not show that reflection. The technology of the recording device created that portion of the image.

You could argue that removing it does a *better* job of maintaining the integrity of the image.

p.s. After I wrote this, I checked the image again. The player at the top does have red-eye! He doesn’t really have red eyes, does he? (And how could you possibly correct it without getting artistic?)

p.p.s After even closer examination, have those red eyes already been modified a bit?