Would you clone this out?

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #13305695
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.

I brought up Fox News because someone asked if it was illegal to lie. In the context of the thread it was relevant because altering a photo by adding or subtracting elements is not illegal, it is just unethical. I only brought Fox up because that was the latest case I can remember about whether or not it is illegal to lie as a news organization. Nothing political from my end.

Here is an unmodified crop of the eyes, surprisingly the QB in back spiked a bit of redeye but the RB did not get much since he was not looking at me. Also provided is the entire frame SOOC resized. I provide small squares like the original post to the school for their use. If I sell to the local paper I provide the entire frame and they crop to fit their layout. If I sell to parents I crop to my desire.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

By the standards listed above...fixing the players red eye would be unethical and not correct.

Huskers69 wrote in post #13303708
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.

I have tried to be very civil and just state my views as I see them but your post really pissed me off. What I have listened to and learned is that a big change or at least an examination in particular cases should be considered in cases related to this original post, and started this whole disagreement. My comment about just learning how to work my camera is correct and as I have taken note on many threads here, everyone is always learning something new, even the pro's. That said, do not critique me or be critical of what I state because as you are entitled to your opinion so am I. In this case most of the facts related to this type of action have been for the most part people or body parts being pulled from pics. Yes in some cases objects have been added or taken away but far more people. You can state your case til the cows come home about having a code of ethics and being true to your profession but In this instance the way the thread started, My opinion, that light served no purpose other then to take away from a great picture. If the photo journalistic society wants to **** about not taking that light out because it takes away from the moment or changes the context or content of the picture, they need to have their heads re-examined. Changing the content of a picture especially when it causes issue or is an important part of the shot, needs to remain. But in this particular case, they are wrong and possibly in instances like this they should re-examine their positions. I am sure if you took this picture to all of your friends and asked them if taking that light out will change anything for them in content and context they would all say no. But again the response from some is going to be you don't get it. I do get it.

ajaffe wrote in post #13306215
I brought up Fox News because someone asked if it was illegal to lie. In the context of the thread it was relevant because altering a photo by adding or subtracting elements is not illegal, it is just unethical. I only brought Fox up because that was the latest case I can remember about whether or not it is illegal to lie as a news organization. Nothing political from my end.

I agree with you, and that's my take on it as well - just saying I didn't bring it up out of the blue like it seemed to be insinuated by who I quoted. Nothing illegal about it, ethical and legal are not the same as we all know.

jcpoulin wrote in post #13306792
By the standards listed above...fixing the players red eye would be unethical and not correct.

You're correct - again for prints and stuff it seems weird not to remove it since it's parents prints, but journalistically speaking it's a no-no. Take a look at the highlighted part of the Associated Press ethics below.

---------------

AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or digitally manipulate the content of a photograph in any way.

The content of a photograph must not be altered in Photoshop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by Photoshop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust on camera sensors and scratches on scanned negatives or scanned prints are acceptable.

Minor adjustments in Photoshop are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction (analogous to the burning and dodging previously used in darkroom processing of images) and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. The removal of “red eye” from photographs is not permissible.

When an employee has questions about the use of such methods or the AP’s requirements and limitations on photo editing, he or she should contact a senior photo editor prior to the transmission of any image.

On those occasions when we transmit images that have been provided and altered by a source — the faces obscured, for example — the caption must clearly explain it. Transmitting such images must be approved by a senior photo editor.
Except as described herein, we do not stage, pose or re-enact events. When we shoot video, environmental portraits, or photograph subjects in a studio care should be taken to avoid, misleading viewers to believe that the moment was spontaneously captured in the course of gathering the news. In the cases of portraits, fashion or home design illustrations, any intervention should be revealed in the caption and special instructions box so it can¹t be mistaken as an attempt to deceive.

**http://www.ap.org/news​values/index.html


---------------EDIT---------------

Just so you know, there are plenty of times when it's fine to manipulate a photo as has been already discussed. I remember my first trading card photo and something was "off" on it besides the fact they PhotoShopped a MLB uniform over his MILB one, they blurred the background around the player as well more than it was. This is a commercial product that is OK to photoshop because it's not considered journalistic. Team photo a few years ago the team was doing a giveaway - we took out the light posts and a tarp - it was fine, yet if you go to the wire service with that same photo you can see it was not edited the same and everything was left in. Prints are editorial in nature, but when selling to parents for their private use it's OK to make it "better" in most instances (removing acne, red eye, even crap in the background if they so request). All depends on how it's getting used as has been said repeatedly and just want to drive that point home.

ajaffe wrote in post #13304298
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.

Hi Aaron. I've looked at the photo yet again - there is nothing in that shot that says to me anything about what type of game it was - other than American football. it could be anywhere, at any level. There is nothing in that shot that indicates where it was played, other than at night. So I think we will have to agree to disagree. Unless the player in the middle is actually well known or interesting for some other reason, I would bin it - sorry ChunkyDA.

Hannya wrote in post #13308210
Hi Aaron. I've looked at the photo yet again - there is nothing in that shot that says to me anything about what type of game it was - other than American football. it could be anywhere, at any level. There is nothing in that shot that indicates where it was played, other than at night. So I think we will have to agree to disagree. Unless the player in the middle is actually well known or interesting for some other reason, I would bin it - sorry ChunkyDA.

Ha, now that's funny. This shot survives on it's many merits but thanks for the insight.

While I'm in a confessing mood, let me continue my Mea Culpa... ... ...

Everyone who shoots flashed hs football at night has had to cope with red-eye. Even the most basic photo software has a red-eye correction tool. Those tools are my method of choice for dealing with those issues. However, there are times when there are peculiar flash reflections/colors/int​eraction with the sclera/irides that won't be corrected by those tools. I've also had red-eye situations that would not be corrected by iPhoto or Lightroom but would be corrected using the red-eye tool in photoshop.

In cases that won't correct using the tool, and they are rare, I have cloned one pupil or iris (or part of one) and pasted it to the other eye. [Note: I originally read about the technique in this forum years ago.] I can't recall if any of those images made it to print. Probably not since I rarely do that but it begs the question of ethical or not for a high school yearbook or paper? Is that as bad or worse than the red-eye tool? What if the red-eye tool has sliders for the size and darkness/lightness of the pupil? Is using those OK? Are catch-lights permitted in a red-eye corrected pupil?

I've also edited a red eye pupil pixel by pixel (the red eye was too subtle for the tool to work) to alter red tinted pixels and replace them with darker pixels without the red color. I was doing what the red-eye tool would do--except manually one pixel at a time. [The red-eye tool in Lightroom used to be much less effective than it is now.] Does that cross the line? Why or why not?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I am trying to flush out the details of what is permitted/prohibited and why. Especially why.


Not all red-eyes are equal, nor can they all be corrected with all red-eye software. cropped SOOC. If I were to use the red-eye tool for the player's right eye and clone that to the left, is that permitted?

The issue here is not about whether you agree with what some would consider extreme standards i.e. removal of red eye, etc. My personal opinion is that removal of red eye would be OK. The point is that when working for a news agency, a photographer must abide by their journalistic policies/standards, otherwise don't work for the agency. It's no different than any other job or profession. There are rules/policies at my company that I think are silly, but I have to abide by them or I can go work somewhere else. I'm in the software business and it' s considered improper to sell software based on future capabilities, even if a release is in beta, without notifying the customer of those facts. I think it's the same issue here: don't submit a modified photograph to a news agency without documenting the modifications and providing the original. The news agency can then always be sure that they are maintaining journalistic integrity. I just wish they were as strict with their words as they are with their pictures!

I guess after all my ranting I should have taken a different tact and just said its sad in cases like this one, an exception could not be agreed or granted if wanting to use this photo for a sports new agency or something similar. With that red eye, I would hope, if I am the player in the photo, its never used. Not worth all the comments he will probably get from his friends and peers after they see it.

That would bother the heck out of me. Really is bad luck but yes I would clone out no matter what. Nice shot though!

Zivnuska wrote in post #13308554
While I'm in a confessing mood, let me continue my Mea Culpa... ... ...

Everyone who shoots flashed hs football at night has had to cope with red-eye. Even the most basic photo software has a red-eye correction tool. Those tools are my method of choice for dealing with those issues. However, there are times when there are peculiar flash reflections/colors/int​eraction with the sclera/irides that won't be corrected by those tools. I've also had red-eye situations that would not be corrected by iPhoto or Lightroom but would be corrected using the red-eye tool in photoshop.

In cases that won't correct using the tool, and they are rare, I have cloned one pupil or iris (or part of one) and pasted it to the other eye. [Note: I originally read about the technique in this forum years ago.] I can't recall if any of those images made it to print. Probably not since I rarely do that but it begs the question of ethical or not for a high school yearbook or paper? Is that as bad or worse than the red-eye tool? What if the red-eye tool has sliders for the size and darkness/lightness of the pupil? Is using those OK? Are catch-lights permitted in a red-eye corrected pupil?

I've also edited a red eye pupil pixel by pixel (the red eye was too subtle for the tool to work) to alter red tinted pixels and replace them with darker pixels without the red color. I was doing what the red-eye tool would do--except manually one pixel at a time. [The red-eye tool in Lightroom used to be much less effective than it is now.] Does that cross the line? Why or why not?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I am trying to flush out the details of what is permitted/prohibited and why. Especially why.


Not all red-eyes are equal, nor can they all be corrected with all red-eye software. cropped SOOC. If I were to use the red-eye tool for the player's right eye and clone that to the left, is that permitted?

Who could have guessed that pimples and pupils could be so troublesome?

This has all been answered already...repeatedly..​.

If doing it for a parents print, something that is not news reporting then it's fine if they want it...you're not trying to deceive them, you're fixing things for them. That's one reason I will never accept parents sending my prints to a third party like a newspaper, what if I did take out the redeye or blemishes for them and the paper ran with the edited image instead of the original (not to mention I need to be paid!)?

School newspaper - I'd say you're teaching the kids bad practices if submitting overly edited images, including just the removal of red eye. Red eye is a reflection of the light you used to capture the scene, it's natural, it's not just something the camera makes up and you can remove (like dust on the lens you might see). Yearbook is not news and debatable on how it's used in the yearbook - ours here has a "news" section of the year, in there it'd be wrong to overly edit, on the football photos page probably not as much.

Doing it for a news agency, a newspaper, etc. then it's not fine as it's accepted practice of journalistic integrity to not edit the image too much, especially in the case of cloning pupils which would be major editing to change what you captured. It's deceiving people to, at the very least, think you took a photo with less flaws. "Fix it in PhotoShop" is something every photojournalist should cringe at hearing.

Let's take a look at MaxPreps...they're known for selling prints and now novelty products as well. I can guarantee there's tons of images in their archive with "fixed" eyes, probably cloning in several instances, a lot of doctored images basically. For prints to parents and selling those novelty things to parents (keychains, magnets, etc) there's not much of a complaint because the parents want the image to look the best, just as if they were getting their school photos and having acne removed.

However, now they also sell images to Sports Illustrated for editorial purposes. What if SI runs one of those doctored photos? Most MP shooters I doubt are living by PJ standards and care only about the prints, it's almost to the point every photo they sell has to be listed as a "Photo Illustration" because it MIGHT of been doctored by a photographer that doesn't know any better.

It's already been stated several times, and Jdnan nailed it last time - don't like it then don't try to submit to a news agency.

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #13310885
Let's take a look at MaxPreps...

However, now they also sell images to Sports Illustrated for editorial purposes. What if SI runs one of those doctored photos? Most MP shooters I doubt are living by PJ standards and care only about the prints, it's almost to the point every photo they sell has to be listed as a "Photo Illustration" because it MIGHT of been doctored by a photographer that doesn't know any better.

You must have read my mind. I was wondering about this. Since MaxPreps also sells images for editorial use, and since MaxPreps requires red eye to be removed for their galleries, it seems like an ethical dilemma.

Well I'm the farthest thing as to being a photojournalist there is. Most (90%) of my images that are published each week is sports related. Yes I realize it is still being photojournalist. With that said, I do what ever I can to shoot without red eye, but out of a 100 keepers or so I'll still end up with a handful of images with red eye. I fix them before submitting them to my publisher. I do that because my publisher has given me the go ahead to do so. And as noted above another publisher I submit to (MaxPreps) also require it to be removed as well. For what ever the reason is both of these publishers feel that fixing red eye does not take away from the integrity of the photo. But again that is there call. I would not do so with out full disclosure. If they say they are ok with it, it's on them. On the OT of this thread, I would view editing out the reflection would indeed lose integrity of the image and would not do so if I was going to submit it. And before I get blasted, as I'm sure I will, that is how the real world works in my limited area of sports photojournalist. I have little, if any, control who buys image rights to my images sold to outlets through MaxPreps. I have no choice but to let MaxPrep disclose if red eye adjustments were made. And to be honest before this thread it would have never crossed my mind that ethically I should not be removing/fixing a red eye problem. So for that I'm thankful, as now I can make full disclosure for any future images and let the power at be make the decision. I do realize that fixing red eye would in fact put you on the 'slippery slope', but I feel I leave the slipper slope by making full discloser...sure I'm leaving the slippery by simply putting the publisher on it...but it's call transfer of liability. Not the perfect solution, but it seems to be the best solution.

That's somewhat funny...you feel fixing red eye ( a direct change to the player involved) does not disort the integrity of the image, but taking out a reflection of a marker on a bus parked across a parking lot probably 100 yards away from the play, does change the integrity......hmmmm