AP bans photographer.

http://news.yahoo.com …er-altered-221938001.html

How that minor alteration changed the story the pic is projecting? Why I get the feeling there is more behind this story?

Brain Mechanic wrote in post #16627852
How that minor alteration changed the story the pic is projecting?

It didn't, but he broke a rule every photojournalist should know.

Brain Mechanic wrote in post #16627852
How that minor alteration changed the story the pic is projecting? Why I get the feeling there is more behind this story?

To be honest, the second image fits with the story that this is a shot of a rebel fighter ducking for cover under fire. The first shot however, with another camera in shot, does give an impression that it is a setup situation for a number of photographers and that the guy is possibly doing this for the cameras.

Now, I have no reason to disbelieve that the guy is truly under fire, but the alteration DOES change reality and the perception of the situation. It is a hard and fast rule that you DO NOT clone ANYTHING in or out of news photographs. If you start allowing grey areas where some things can be removed, if they don't change things "too much", it starts causing arguments about "well, if he can do that, why can't I do this" and soon lowers the believability of all press images.

There are no exceptions to the rule, you can't bend it "a bit" because it doesn't make a big difference. You are there to record the reality of the situation, not a cleaned up version of reality because it makes a better image compositionally.

Brain Mechanic wrote in post #16627852
How that minor alteration changed the story the pic is projecting? Why I get the feeling there is more behind this story?

What other photos has that photographer altered? Could be countless of photos. Do you realise the dangers of altering photos can do in regards to photojournalism? Wars have been started over a dodgy dossier, if photographers are going to alter images, that could accidentally cause problems. Please don't say I'm over-reacting, wars are serious things

sandpiper wrote in post #16627932
...You are there to record the reality of the situation, not a cleaned up version of reality because it makes a better image compositionally.

so what youre saying is the image should be sent straight out of camera? no photo image has ever been cropped or exposure/contrast/whit​e balance corrected?

this is an 'unbendable' rule?

As far as AP is concerned it is unbendable. I agree with their decision. Cropping can be done in camera (framing/reframing): that is not a problem, nor is it basic image adjustments (contrast, exposure, WB to a point), it's cloning that is the issue.

The craziest thing is that the AP actually thinks that anything journalists report is actually 'reality'.

Not that I'm saying they should allow cloning or similar manipulation, but the tone suggests there is no way there could be someone holding a beer behind the photog, just because the reporter says it is a photo of someone 'ducking for cover'.

Alveric wrote in post #16628401
As far as AP is concerned it is unbendable. I agree with their decision. Cropping can be done in camera (framing/reframing): that is not a problem, nor is it basic image adjustments (contrast, exposure, WB to a point), it's cloning that is the issue.

Seems like such a silly thing. You're OK to take a step forward, use a longer lens, or re-aim the camera before pushing the shutter button, but slice a column or row of pixels off afterward and you've violated the Prime Directive.

Ltdave wrote in post #16628390
so what youre saying is the image should be sent straight out of camera? no photo image has ever been cropped or exposure/contrast/whit​e balance corrected?

this is an 'unbendable' rule?

You can't remove things from an image or add to an image. Pretty simply really.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #16628628
You can't remove things from an image or add to an image. Pretty simply really.

+1

I cannot even believe, that some people even debating over this stuff. Documentary and journalism comes first and alterations cannot be allowed [not talking here about shadows, blacks and exposure]. Gosh...

Ltdave wrote in post #16628390
so what youre saying is the image should be sent straight out of camera? no photo image has ever been cropped or exposure/contrast/whit​e balance corrected?

this is an 'unbendable' rule?

That isn't what I said at all. You can crop the image (the newspapers usually will anyway to fit the column format when they layout the page) and you can correct the exposure, WB etc. Nobody has said that you can't.

What HAS been said is that you cannot use cloning techniques to remove things from the scene that are "inconvenient", or add in other items, simply because it makes a better photograph.

If you can't see a difference between correcting exposure or WB, and physically removing inconvenient items from the scene, and therefore altering the reality, then you won't understand. The rule of no cloning is unbendable, it has to be, if you start allowing some things to be removed or added, then who draws a line at WHAT is permissible to remove or add.

Framing the shot to avoid the other camera in the first place is permissible, as your shot is still a true representation of that bit of the scene captured, cloning it out is NOT permissible as you have altered the reality of the bit you shot.

Of course we all know that cameras can only record very small segments of time and the area in which wars are fought. We all know that photographers choose what to shoot and there is other stuff outside the frame. But we still NEED to know that what we see in the shot is what was actually in front of the camera at the time, and hasn't had things removed or added for effect. If it becomes allowable to alter what was in the scene, all photojournalism becomes devalued and untrustworthy.

Do you prefer the Korean or Russian system, where people are removed from shots, because it was inconvenient that they were present? Or missile tests show three times as many missiles as they actually possessed? Start allowing the scene to be changed and it is a slippery slope from "better composition" to "propaganda".

Mr. Contreras clearly violated an important standard of photo journalism but I agree there is probably more to the story than the AP is giving us. Perhaps they are leaping to show their purity in hopes everyone will forget about last year's self-created Iran bomb drawing hoax.

Here is the AP policy : AP NEWS VALUES & PRINCIPLES
About halfway down is the section on images.

I find it interesting that "The removal of 'red eye' from photographs is not permissible."