NC photographer fired for manipulating photos

Quite simply...No.

The issue is with the manipulation of the image post-capture. Underexposure of the image by itself is not a manipulation, as it is not some form of digital darkroom trickery, but a function of the original capture process. The original image, even though it is underexposed, is still original and untouched. Once you begin making levels adjustments, cropping, resizing, etc....it becomes manipulation...because now you are altering the original image.

I have these observations:
1. Schneider was previously reprimanded by his employer for altering photos.
2. Schneider was warned warned by his employer not to do it again.
3. Schneider did it again in spite of the warnings from his employer.
4. Schneider was terminated for disobeying his employer.
My opinions:
1. An employer has the right to terminate an employee who deliberately disobeys orders. If the orders are that repugnant then the employee should have quit on his own. There may also have been other problems between Schneider and his employer and this was just the excuse needed to sustain a termination.
2. I do believe that PJ requires the accurate capture and presentation of the image as it was, not as it looks best artistically. Art and PJ are quite different. The PJ photographer should pretty much be done after he clicks the shutter while the work of the artist has often times just begun.
3. Perhaps this is just what Schneider needed to get on with his artistic career.

Yes Cosworth, the National Photographers Code of Ethics is quite a load.

manipulations of the truth happens everyday as evidenced by the current issues with the photos from the press conference of the Secretary of State Rice while in the middle east... the images have been shown by means of video tape to be very missleading. But it happens everyday. What this guy did in this particular case was well within the bounds normally set. "color" correction happens all the time. But like Skip said, there is much much more behind this issue. This was the justification for the firing... not the reason.

Well put Mark.

The PJ knew the rules before he went into the field. If he couldn't adjust to the reality of PJ rules, then he should choose another photographic pursuit. Its not like there aren't any options out there. Its not right to freely adjust a news photo just because he wants to do it and let the newspaper pay the price for his artistic tendencies. The editors aren't really looking for art, they are looking for something real. If the public thinks they are faking it, they will look elsewhere for the news. Its about credibility.

I am kind of surprised to see so many photographers being critical of the guy who was fired. It seems to me that what he got canned for doing was no different than what reporters and editors do with words every day. Even if papers were to print raw files with some sort of standardized processing the photographer has already put himself in the story by choosing where to stand for the shot, his choice of lens, aperture, and exposure; editors, layout people, and printers all further alter the picture through resizing, cropping, and color adjustment. Some say he knew the rules of the game, but it seems to me the rules are vague at best. Certainly the firefighter image was altered too much; in fact I thought the original looked better and the addition of the black background looked artificial. Evidently I don't have much taste as I wouldn't have given the picture an award in the first place. Which brings up another thought: if photojournalism is supposed to be starkly objective, then why have awards for the best picture in the first place? Anyway, there have been some good points made on both sides here and I have enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts. I have also come across this essay on photographs and accusations of fakery/manipulation that I thought was interesting; some of you might enjoy it as well.

At the risk of sounding harsh, I'd say that given the level of editorializing that often appears in today's news presentation, I believe that a number of reporters and editors ought to be fired as well.

I'm a PJ(at least through the college school systems, and have gone through the classes and read through the books).

The general, unwritten rule to Photoshop, is anything you can do in the darkroom previously with film is okay with current digital media(although there have been controversial cases where papers overreacted). There also were some papers who cloned out body parts from that Amtrack train crash in Glendale a few years ago. Not sure who, but various papers like LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, Sacbee all had their intreprations. Some did creative cropping, others showed, and one or two cloned it out.

http://www.cnn.com …S/01/26/train.d​erailment/

Then of course there is the Times guy who took two photos and merged them, but did a bad job on it. That defintely is changing the truth, even more.

Then there's Sports Illustrated that got in trouble for extending the skies to fit a 2 page layout. Now they put a notice of that manipulation. Previously they didn't.

Keep in mind, you always distort the truth when taking a photo because you have to isolate information, frame it in your intrepretation. A wide angle for instance will make an image look bigger while a telephoto will compress things. The choice of lens can so clearly effect that. So there's always manipulation going on. It's just how much.

Pretty much, you should be able to adjust the color balances, saturation, contrast, burn/dodge, sharpen. Generally you are just trying to give the most accurate representation you witnessed.


Lets look at this photo. My choice of lens was wide angle to purposely show off the reporters. It'll also make the crowd appear to be bigger.

The general, unwritten rule to Photoshop, is anything you can do in the darkroom previously with film is okay with current digital media

What I think a number of people don't acknowledge is that almost everything (perhaps everything) that can be done in Photoshop has antecedents from the darkroom. Even the names are often the same: dodge, burn, unsharp mask, cut, paste, and so on. The biggest difference is that instead of taking hours with an Exacto knife and loupe these things can be done in a few minutes with a Wacom tablet.

Yeah, agree. There are just some degrees that are too much.

It really sounds as if the people reprimanding the photographer and doing the firing are not in the photography/art department and more of a public relations position.

I don't think the issue is Schneider's alteration of this particular shot, but as Croasdail mentions, this was not the first time. He had been reprimanded on prior occasions. At some point the editor if not the readers have to start questioning every shot he submitted for publication.

It's hard to reach a verdict without actually seeing the original picture. But if the quote above is correct, I'd fire him too.

This isn't art, it's news.

http://www.poynter.org​/resource/45119/done.s​wf

Here are three additional photos under the same scrutiny. Personally, the two photos where the colors were just made more vivid don't seem bad to me. It's nothing I find to be over the top. If he was using film, I believe the same effect could be made shooting slide film vs. print film... especially Velvia. The firefighters with the background blacked out actually looked better to me with the original background, but there again, nothing that couldn't be done with a film camera IF the photographer is creative enough. In this case, the background could be blacked out with an high shutter, slow film, and a flash with high speed sync capabilities.

forkball wrote:
http://www.poynter.org​/resource/45119/done.s​wf

Here are three additional photos under the same scrutiny. Personally, the two photos where the colors were just made more vivid don't seem bad to me.

Thanks John. I did see those three pictures and I agree that the changes in 'saturation' in the two shots is OK. Photoshopping out the background is going over the line. It's fine if your shooting for a book on photography or scenery. Not for a shot that will be used in support of a news story.

I still would like to see the original shoot of the firefighter on the ladder.