AP bans photographer.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16632756
So a collection of single images. Obvious as a collection of individual images each telling its own story, perhaps telling a story as a collective, but not blended.

What does it matter if it's blended or not if the message is the same.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16632762
What does it matter if it's blended or not if the message is the same.

Credibility. If you dont understand that I'm not sure I can help you. The photographer isnt allowed to create content that doesnt exist. He captures. The editors can shape a story, but they also cant alter the images to create something new.

I'm with AP that the image should not be manipulated to where elements are added or removed, but in this case I think the photog is getting punished for being lazy and sloppy. He could have just as easily captured the image with the video photographer out of frame.

joeblack2022 wrote in post #16632741
Apart from covering the inadvertent Swiss invasion?

http://www.cbc.ca …es-liechtenstein-1.658642

Very embarrassing! 170 soldiers with funny knives lost in a snowstorm!

I especially like the fact that the Liechtensteiners didn't know they had been invaded until the Swiss called them to apologize. But then, Liechtenstein has no military at all and only 87 cops for the whole country (all 62 square miles of it). Still, despite being a Germanic nation, they managed to remain neutral during WWII, so they must be doing something right.

20droger wrote in post #16632831
Very embarrassing! 170 soldiers with funny knives lost in a snowstorm!

When was the last time you've been in a white-out in the mountains?

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16632838
When was the last time you've been in a white-out in the mountains?

Actually, never. My whiteout experiences were on an ice plateau at 8000 feet, but no mountains.

gjl711 wrote in post #16632782
I'm with AP that the image should not be manipulated to where elements are added or removed, but in this case I think the photog is getting punished for being lazy and sloppy. He could have just as easily captured the image with the video photographer out of frame.

Just speculation on my part, but if they were indeed dodging bullets at the time it was probably a spray and pray on his part.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16632838
When was the last time you've been in a white-out in the mountains?

Come on Doc, it is a funny story.

joeblack2022 wrote in post #16632871
Just speculation on my part, but if they were indeed dodging bullets at the time it was probably a spray and pray on his part.

Perhaps. But still, the rules are the rules, and why he broke them is irrelevant.

The commandment is: Thou shalt not alter content. Period.

He altered content; he got canned. End of story.

I agree with AP on this.

20droger wrote in post #16632918
Perhaps. But still, the rules are the rules, and why he broke them is irrelevant.

The commandment is: Thou shalt not alter content. Period.

He altered content; he got canned. End of story.

I agree with AP on this.

I'm not saying he is justified in editing the photo, but was contextualizing the comment I responded to about it being a "lazy" shot and that he should have gotten it right in the first place.

I'm pretty sure the subject wasn't going to jump for cover again on request.

Anyone wonder what Art Wolfe would say about this?

If removing the camera from the shot didn't alter what the picture conveyed then why did he remove it in the first place? I think he knew what he was doing and he got caught is all.

jptsr1 wrote in post #16633109
If removing the camera from the shot didn't alter what the picture conveyed then why did he remove it in the first place? I think he knew what he was doing and he got caught is all.

Bingo.

joeblack2022 wrote in post #16632871
Come on Doc, it is a funny story.

Ain't nobody hurt when a guy just ax a question

my understanding is journos must leave the photo original to clearly document the scene as it was?

sandpiper wrote in post #16629459
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".

So is using f1.4 to blur the background beyond recognition acceptable?

Seems arbitrary to allow obscuring of irrelevant factors before processing but not after.