NC photographer fired for manipulating photos

I just heard about this and could not see that it had been posted here:Charlotte Observer Photographer Fired For Altering Colors.

I will keep my opinion out of it for now, but was curious as to what people here think. For more links about the story as well as some discussion, check out this thread on MetaFilter. The links there contain some before and after examples of the photos that got him in trouble.

What a ****ing travesty. Here it is summed up succintly

"Schneider said he did not intend to mislead readers, only to restore the actual color of the sky," the note continues. "He said the color was lost when he underexposed the photo to offset the glare of the sun."

How in the hell is it wrong to correct an image to account for photographic technique? Under this logic, exposing to the right and then adjusting in ACR would also get you fired. In fact, using RAW and adjusting in ACR at all would likely get you ****canned at that paper.

What a complete crock

The whole premise is crap... pardon my french. If a color change of the sky changes the meaning of the image... well.... heck... I don't know. I am sorry, but every shot tells a story, and includes or leaves out details. The angle from which they are shot persuads viewers opinion of the subject. When I did the Black Panthers images, I choose to shoot from a rediculasly low angle to make the subjects look more impressive. It is common technique. You can take a shot down ward to make someone look demure and a victim. Photojournalism is about telling a story... and it often comes with the perspective of the photographer. The changes this guy made did not alter the context of the story. What ever... there must be a lot more to this then this one image... this must of been that perverbial straw.

There is more at stake here than a simple alteration of colour or exposure.

First, the pj must or should have known that the whole media is being questioned by its treatment of the Iraqui war. It was to be expected that the line would be drawn somewhere. He imprudently crossed the line and put himself in the scapegoat position.

It is true that the photog can and could have modified the image's message by changing his shooting angle. But the fact stands that he didn't. What he did was alter the image. This can be compared to a journalist that does not like the answer he got from his interviewed. He may think that if he had phrased his question differently, he would have received another answer. But the fact is that he didn't ask differently and didn't receive another answer. He has no right to editorialize the answer he received. Maybe this is done all the time by the newspapers but that does not make it right.

We do know that editors bias the information that will be published by stressing that that may sell more papers. But this cannot set the journalist and/or pj free to do their own editorializing.

It is indeed questionable whether the pp done in this case did or did not change seriously the context of the image. But, still it seems that he should have advised his editor of what he had done.

News reporting is not about aesthetics (sb linked the NY Times about this). It is about credibility. And sometimes harsh measures have to be taken to put it back in right road. This photographer, maybe unjustly in his case, took the blame for the bigger frame.

But, then, he should have known.

A case that comes to my mind is about the freedom to shoot the NY Subway. You know that you have the right to do it. But you also know that, sometimes, you better yield that right.

If he wants to tell a story with HIS photo, then why prevent him from doing so?

If he intended to take the shot and restore the color as it looked to the naked eye, then why not let him?

Well I've never shot for a paper so I don't know any "standard" rules. But why not allow color adjustments or white balance adjustments? Now - editing elements out, replacing things - that's a bit different from a newspaper point of view.

Still this seems a bit excessive. I'm of the point that if the picture looks better, why not run it in the paper? Meh. Whatever.

Admittedly, I don't know much about the realities of being a photographer for a major newspaper, but couldn't Mr. Schneider have avoided all this unpleasantness by going to his editor and saying, "I lost the color in the sky when I underexposed the photo to offset the glare of the sun. That's why the sky's brownish-gray in this picture. Here's what it looks like after I Photoshopped it - the deep red sky and more distinct halo around the sun represent what it actually looked like."

Of course, had he done this his editor would presumably have told him, "The Photoshopped picture looks completely exaggerated and unrealistic; we're running the unaltered photo."

Photojournalists are often held to the same standards as forensic photographers simply to avoid any potential complications down the road. Legally a forensic photograph must meet certain criteria to be admissible as evidence. 1. Is this photograph a fair and accurate representation of the facts at the time it was taken? And 2. Has this photograph been altered or manipulated in any way? If you are familiar with Canon products, you may have heard of the data verification featureCanon Data Verification....which allows digital images to be entered into evidence...since there is no negative to prove that there was no manipulation. With the data verification feature, only a straight out of the camera image will pass the test.

Photojournalists are expected to present the facts as they see them and legally the images can be subpoenaed for use in a legal proceding. There are some tricks of the trade to manipulate the image to present the facts in a bolder or more subtle fashion...without altering the image itself. However; what happens to credibility when a PJ takes an image of a protester carrying a sign that says..."Joe Smith isn't Cool" and then photoshops it to read "Joe Smith is Cool"...simply because the latter supports his/her personal agenda?

Photojournalism isn't about art...it is about presenting the facts and that is why he was fired...for altering the facts. For what it is worth...I think the manipulated image is fantastic and if presented as art is very worthy of display and recognition. I think we all would love to present our images in the best possible "light"...but legally that isn't always possible.

BTW, there is a code of ethics for photojournalists...you might want to read up on it if you are thinking of becoming one. And many media outlets have stipulations in their contracts about image manipulation. I suspect the firing was a direct result of a violation of a clause of the contract. Firing him may have been a bit extreme, but in light of all the recent scandals involving altered images...he might have been a sacrificial lamb.

89

I think that this really sums it up - As a reader, I expect images in newspapers and news magazines to depict a scene as close to reality as possible. Reading the paper each morning should bring the reader a depiction of events in their fullness. Report the facts, record the scene, show me what actually happened.

I don't think that is always the case, and in some publications and news organizations, I think that images are chosen solely for their support of the article which they accompany. And I believe that some publications take strong editorial license in trying to create the story rather than report it.

I don't know that Mr. Schneider meant to alter the images in a way that presented the situation in a manner outside of reality, but as a reader, I would expect that he would leave the scene as close as possible to that of the original situation. Looking at a couple of the other images presented, I would say that while his changes might have been artistically acceptable, some may have altered the scene in a manner significant enough to present a different scene to the viewer (the firemen image comes to mind).

IMHO, news supercedes aesthetics in a news publication.

Let me add a little twist here.... so he wanted to restore the intensity and colors of the background. Just like shooting sunsets, most digital cameras well compensate for fading light and overexpose to bring white levels back up giving you an underdramatic and unrepresentative shot. Very often I will deal with this by underexposing the shot by a stop or two to bring the "drama" back to the sunset. In effect this is all this chap did. So, if he had dond this in camera by adjusting exposure (or correcting white balance), when it then still be as vile action? Does the "manipulation" have to be done post, or does in camera shooting exposure adjustments count too?

I probably would have done the same thing if the colors were not what they were when I saw the image prior to taking it!

For anyone who is interested, the National Press Photographers Association's Code of Ethics is here.

Complete bunk.

We are all assuming that all he did was alter RAW data - he could have used a masked adjustment layer, or a masked colorizing layer - would this change your opinions? The problem is that we don't know enough about what he did - only the end result, which many of us find to be acceptable.

The paper should not allow digital PERIOD. With film you have the negative to prove you did not change a thing. Digital will always change stuff depending on your workflow and software.


Of course you still have to print the neg but you minimize problems like this. Other problems they will have but if they want the convenience of digital they have to accept certain other aspects as well. It is a bit hard to define when they say they accept small changes but what is small? .5% of the pixels can change or what? You either accept changes or not. They really should accept no changes. Is cropping a change though?

He had been warned before so I guess they just wanted to be free of him

Film does nothing to stop or ease this paricular issue.... correcting for color is as simple as a twist of one nob on the color head. And eventually it has to cross into the digital world. But agreed, you should look at all images with some level of questioning.