Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/11/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Actually Peter dodging and burning an image from a film negative or a digital file is not creating a fake photo. Its just ensuring that all the information you were looking at when you took the picture gets seen in the end product. Its call "craft". Its calling being a master of your materials. Without better than low level software like you are using what you are getting is like what you get back from Walgreens or a Kiosk in the middle of a parking lot. Snapshots. I can tell you when you make pictures in our high school darkroom for the high school paper they expected dodging and burning, local photography controls of contrast and density. The idea that not with digital we can't do that lowers the level of work so they look worse than high school paper. And are certainly not fit for professional work. If you notice when you Bing or Goggle photojournalism the shots you are looking at do not look like snapshots. There has been some local control. There has been some craft. On the lists the people who have other things on their mind then quality photography call this "Manipulation" and you just called it " fake photos". On 11/19/15 9:58 PM, "Peter Klein" <boulanger.croissant at gmail.com> wrote: > I understand that most spot-news photographers are already shooting JPG > for speed reasons. But Reuters' corporate spin is that the policy will > ensure honest photographs that "reflect reality." And Reuters has said that > they will check (probably the EXIF, by computer) to insure that all > photos submitted came from in-camera JPGs, and not have been developed from > RAW. So there's more than just a "smaller files are faster" push here. But > it's B.S. Unless Reuters insists on checksum-generating cameras, the people > who really want to fake photos still will. Most of us on this list know how > easy it is to edit EXIF data. So what this policy is saying to photographers > is "We don't trust you. So we'll make a policy that will take away standard > tools of the trade, and convince ourselves and the public that this solves the > problem, even though it doesn't." You know how the corporate world often > works. A Big Powerful Executive announces that he or she has solved a problem > by his ground-breaking new policy. He/she may not know anything about what he > is proposing. It may wreak havoc with the little people who actually do the > work, but "theirs is not to reason why." They can be brought into line by > compliance training plus a few examples of draconian discipline or summary > dismissal. The next thing you know, other executives, who want to appear as > Big and Powerful as the first one, play copycat. All the big guys get their > big bonuses for having taken decisive action to solve a problem. Word spreads > through the industry that this policy is a good thing to do. And by the time > news of the damage caused filters up the chain of command, it will be blamed > on something else, on someone else lower in rank, or the messenger will > be shot. Dodging and burning are usually not a dishonest altering reality. > They are a way of making the photo better resemble what the human eye saw, > with its ability to scan and see both highlights and shadows. They have been > an important tool in photography for over a century. I don't think > that option should be taken away from photographers and editors. Having a > RAW option is important for high-contrast situations--such as > low-latitude deserts in bright daylight. Regrettably, there are going to be a > lot more news photos coming from such locations. Also, with all of the mixed > light sources photographers have to deal with, being able to use different > white balance settings on different part of the photo is important. Mark > mentions National Geographic. Well, faked wildlife photos have caused some > scandals recently. And NG is now owned by Rupert Murdoch, (supposedly) a news > guy. So this policy could very well be adopted by National Geographic one of > these days. I just hope that magazine and "editorial" photographers don't end > up having this policy shoved down their throats as well. --Peter On Thu, Nov > 19, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > > > > "?Speed is also very important to us. We have therefore asked our > > photographers to skip labor and time consuming processes to get our > > pictures > to our clients faster.?" > > 'The bulk of the people sending in > stuff to Rueters and AP are Rueters and > AP photographers who have never shot > RAW in their lives but have been > hitting deadlines measured in minutes and > seconds and sending off their > shots moments after taking them usually in a > crowd of other photographers > all flashing their flashes. They are not > shooting for their shots to be > enduring, they are not shooting quality work > they seem to never have their > flash not on their cameras and never seem to > turn them off. Its this > mornings new flash. > I think if this was more > about magazine work where your deadline is a week > away and its like National > Geographic or something of some real enduring > quality than this would be way > more of a travesty than it is. > > On 11/19/15 10:16 AM, "Tina Manley" > <images at comporium.net> wrote: > > > I think most of their shooters already use > jpeg only just for speed. > Some > > take both RAW and jpeg - the jpeg to > submit and the RAW to work on later > > for themselves. Makes sense, but I > would never shoot jpeg only. > > > > Tina > > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:35 > AM, Peter Klein < > boulanger.croissant at gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> < > > >> > >> > > http://petapixel.com/2015/11/18/reuters-issues-a-worldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/ > > >> #more-191527 > >>> > >> > >> I thought this was a hoax, but evidently > not. It sounds like this > decision > >> was made by an executive type with no > technical knowledge of > photography. I > >> guess dodging and burning are now > the enemy of truth. But if > photographers > >> are still allowed to crop and > adjust levels, how is it going to stop > >> dishonest photoshopping? Is > Reuters going to only allow the use of > cameras > >> that generate JPG > checksums, with all cropping and levels editing done > in > >> camera? > >> > > >> Prepare for a lot of badly-exposed backlit, side-lit and > >> > sunlight-with-black-shadows pictures, I guess. > >> > >> --Peter > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mark William Rabiner > Photographer > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See > http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > information > _______________________________________________ Leica Users > Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/