Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 01 Jun 2016 (Wednesday) 21:24
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Steve McCurry's "Ethical Lapse"

 
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,233 posts
Likes: 200
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
Jun 05, 2016 13:01 |  #16

John Filo's Kent State photo reveals some of the ambiguities that can arise in regards to journalistic integrity.

Some could contend that the offending pole is irrelevant, and that its removal inconsequential to the photo's overall integrity and message.

Others could counter with a slippery slope argument.

Given such conflictive stances, it's understandable that the rules discourage any such type of addition or subtraction just to ensure clear delineation.

http://petapixel.com …case-of-the-missing-pole/ (external link)


July 2018-July 2019 (external link)
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
AZGeorge
Goldmember
Avatar
2,641 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 742
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Southen Arizona
     
Jun 05, 2016 13:23 |  #17

Colin Glover wrote in post #18029827 (external link)
. . . Suppose you take a picture for a news agency, and a tree branch is sticking out of the subjects head or leg, unless it affects what the picture is saying, it's fine. It doesn't change the focus of the picture . . .

At least for responsible news organizations - and they do still exist - that offending branch stays. One can argue as many a new shooter has tried that simply moving a few feet would have removed the branch so a simple pixel repair job is about the same thing, Even that reasonable plea does not cut it. Others argue that excellent reporters never include every trivial detail in a story. That one too fails.

Seemingly obtuse decisions like these go back to the idea of "newspaper of record." Since the reporter would be writing a false record in writing the subject stood against a clear treeless horizon the unfortunate shooter cannot, alas, remove the branch.

Since the publisher's head shot is not news those wrinkles can, of course, be minimized. <G>


George
Democracy Dies in Darkness

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,233 posts
Likes: 200
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
Jun 07, 2016 19:00 |  #18

Looks like the eyes got it, but a question for photojournalists; would the touch up on the Afghan girl's eyes constitute a violation of press standards or would this degree of touch up be overlooked as negligible?

http://petapixel.com …ke-steve-mccurry-scandal/ (external link)


July 2018-July 2019 (external link)
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,982 posts
Gallery: 184 photos
Likes: 7801
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Jun 08, 2016 10:24 |  #19

sjones wrote in post #18032439 (external link)
Looks like the eyes got it, but a question for photojournalists; would the touch up on the Afghan girl's eyes constitute a violation of press standards or would this degree of touch up be overlooked as negligible?

http://petapixel.com …ke-steve-mccurry-scandal/ (external link)


The "Touched up " version is being sold as fine art print poster.
The original was the one published in Nat Geo, ie; the arguably "news"

So IMHO this in no way constitutes a violation of any of the precepts being discussed in this thread.
The poster for sale is "art" and is not masquerading as documentary.

Tat said, if when the original was taken it happened to be 2015, and it was taken with a 1Dx as opposed to Kodachrome, my guess is that the color adjustment, sharpening etc. of the RAW file output would have looked more like the poster anyway.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AZGeorge
Goldmember
Avatar
2,641 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 742
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Southen Arizona
     
Jun 08, 2016 11:53 |  #20

sjones wrote in post #18032439 (external link)
Looks like the eyes got it, but a question for photojournalists; would the touch up on the Afghan girl's eyes constitute a violation of press standards or would this degree of touch up be overlooked as negligible?

http://petapixel.com …ke-steve-mccurry-scandal/ (external link)

I think the difference lies between "reporting on" and "writing about."

If the pic were part of a story reporting local and regional conditions and people the work on eyes and minimizing dirt would have been inappropriate. Given restrained PP few if any editors would have flagged it but the news shooter himself would have been obligated to serve as his own editor.

If, on the other hand, the pic was intended to feature beauty in a setting were few might find beauty it would be work well done.

In my opinion NatGeo is not a hard news organization. They do great work but tend to go beyond facts looking for something like wonder and beauty in many settings.


George
Democracy Dies in Darkness

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,860 posts
Gallery: 96 photos
Likes: 1033
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Jun 08, 2016 23:06 |  #21

If this were the worst ethical lapse in photography, journalism, reporting or any related subject, we would know a lot more about what is really going on around the world. Even if it happened all the time.

That's my 2c anyway.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 35 f2 IS, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_311
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 558
Joined Mar 2011
Post edited over 3 years ago by mike_311. (3 edits in all)
     
Jun 09, 2016 14:03 |  #22

let just start putting little "edited in photoshop" disclaimers on all pictures so there is no confusion. :/

i'm being facetious however, it all boils down to if you are trying to be deceitful in what you are presenting. i think we have a ethical duty as humans to not intentionally deceive one another other in presenting what is expected to be reality.. the media in particular, both in words and in visuals.


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,696 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 462
Joined Jun 2007
Location: MI/CO
     
Jun 09, 2016 14:23 |  #23

i think we have a ethical duty as humans to not intentionally deceive one another

:-P Does that mean that movies aren't to be taken seriously?


The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/c​hauncey43 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,233 posts
Likes: 200
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
Jun 09, 2016 14:50 |  #24

Thanks for the replies. I agree that the touch up on the eyes is relatively superfluous, but I was curious as to how strictly these issues are enforced.


July 2018-July 2019 (external link)
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_311
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 558
Joined Mar 2011
Post edited over 3 years ago by mike_311.
     
Jun 09, 2016 15:15 |  #25

chauncey wrote in post #18034303 (external link)
:-P Does that mean that movies aren't to be taken seriously?

i think we have a ethical duty as humans to not intentionally deceive one another other in presenting what is expected to be reality


i'm guess you left that part out to make a point?


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,500 views & 18 likes for this thread
Steve McCurry's "Ethical Lapse"
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is tonyf1827
802 guests, 246 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.