AP bans photographer.

sandpiper wrote in post #16627932
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.

Which creates yet another ethics violation.

Wayne

NBEast wrote in post #16634931
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.

Of course it's acceptable. Nobody is saying that an image has to include everything in the vicinity of the photographer, it would be impossible anyway. The photographer is in an ongoing area of action, with things all around him. Short of using a permanently running video camera, that records a 360 degree spherical field of view, any image is always going to be a momentary capture of a very limited FOV. It doesn't show what was happening to the side, or above, or a few seconds earlier or later.

So, whatever is recorded is only ever a tiny slice of the overall reality, but it is reality as seen by the camera in that instant.

The rule is simple, it isn't arbitrary in any way. The photographer can choose what part of the overall reality to capture, but they cannot alter the reality they capture.

Do you seriously believe that physically changing a scene, by cloning items in or out of an image, and then presenting it as fact in the media is acceptable?

If you really cannot see why changing the content of a scene, by cloning items in or out, is absolutely not acceptable in journalism, then so be it. Most people can understand the difference.

Should it be acceptable for photographers to not document 360 24/7 at an event? After all one can horribly distort the truth of an event by careful omission and selective choice of what is shown. It is easy enough to paint one force as 'good and oppressed' by only showing when they are attacked and the horrible things that are done to them, and then turning a blind eye when they themselves do horrible things.

sandpiper wrote in post #16635482
Of course it's acceptable. Nobody is saying that an image has to include everything in the vicinity of the photographer, it would be impossible anyway. The photographer is in an ongoing area of action, with things all around him. Short of using a permanently running video camera, that records a 360 degree spherical field of view, any image is always going to be a momentary capture of a very limited FOV. It doesn't show what was happening to the side, or above, or a few seconds earlier or later.

So, whatever is recorded is only ever a tiny slice of the overall reality, but it is reality as seen by the camera in that instant.

The rule is simple, it isn't arbitrary in any way. The photographer can choose what part of the overall reality to capture, but they cannot alter the reality they capture.

Do you seriously believe that physically changing a scene, by cloning items in or out of an image, and then presenting it as fact in the media is acceptable? Clearly cropping is acceptable, as are exposure corrections. Where's the line?

If you really cannot see why changing the content of a scene, by cloning items in or out, is absolutely not acceptable in journalism, then so be it. Most people can understand the difference.

I'm saying that if he were at f1.4 the camera may have been blurred beyond recognition. There's software that will emulate that after the fact.

Photography is about the subject and their place in the environment; but the photographer chooses how much of each. PP is part of their toolkit.

I see the rule and the violation. He used cloning and that's simply taboo.

What I'm wondering is; if he'd used a blurring tool instead; would that be acceptable? Maybe frowned upon, but acceptable?

ANY digital manipulation is going to be considered unacceptable by the agency. Simple.

In a world in which media outlets are already heavily suspected of manipulating the truth, they are not going to be taking any chances with loose cannons who think they can embellish and image with pixel pushing.

I wouldn't be surprised if news agencies soon start asking for the raw files, case they're not doing that already.

I don't understand the arguments drawing an equivalence between compositional choices when taking the picture to image manipulation after taking the picture in photojournalism.

If you truly cannot understand the bright line distinction there as it pertains to photojournalism, then I got nothing to add that might convince you.

RTPVid wrote in post #16635739
I don't understand the arguments drawing an equivalence between compositional choices when taking the picture to image manipulation after taking the picture in photojournalism.

If you truly cannot understand the bright line distinction there as it pertains to photojournalism, then I got nothing to add that might convince you.

The point of difference is the Nature of the manipulation. Whether you manipulate the image by way of compositional choice, or you manipulate it after the fact, you are still manipulating the outcome of the final photo and what it conveys to the audience.

Changing something of consequence in the photo by adding/removing a weapon from a figure: That is bad.

NOT taking a photo of a mass grave being populated: That is very bad.


I wonder what people's views are on blurring the face of a bystander in a photo. Should we condemn photojournalists and editors who choose to do that? After all they are obscuring the facts and truth of what was actually there at the time when the photo was taken, and could actually have a far greater impact on things than whether or not there was an offline camera in the background. (That person becomes a verified witness to the event, but by blurring their face/protecting their identity you then remove the verification that they were there.)

Luckless wrote in post #16635772
The point of difference is the Nature of the manipulation. Whether you manipulate the image by way of compositional choice, or you manipulate it after the fact, you are still manipulating the outcome of the final photo and what it conveys to the audience.

Changing something of consequence in the photo by adding/removing a weapon from a figure: That is bad.

NOT taking a photo of a mass grave being populated: That is very bad.


I wonder what people's views are on blurring the face of a bystander in a photo. Should we condemn photojournalists and editors who choose to do that? After all they are obscuring the facts and truth of what was actually there at the time when the photo was taken, and could actually have a far greater impact on things than whether or not there was an offline camera in the background. (That person becomes a verified witness to the event, but by blurring their face/protecting their identity you then remove the verification that they were there.)

As I said...

RTPVid wrote in post #16635739
...If you truly cannot understand the bright line distinction there as it pertains to photojournalism, then I got nothing to add that might convince you.

I've been a journalist long enough that we usually turned the original B&W film into the art editor for processing and selection of images to run.

One of the directives we got when digital camera emerged on the scene was - turn in our original shots, no PS, no 'fixing it'... And later on and in some venues, we'd get instructions to manipulate it ONLY with the same criteria as we could use in the darkroom ... dodge, burn, contrast, crop etc. No major digital manipulation at all ... and some even required the original RAW images.

I believe in part, those directives allowed the editor to choose the shots that ran best with the story ... and in part so no one could manipulate the images - like what happened in this case.

It's unlikely every photo that's ever run in an AP comes without such attempts, maybe even some successfully published - who knows for sure - but at least AP has guidelines and rules and curtails it as best it can. Looks like the penalty is absolute as well - probably a good thing.