Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Wednesday, Jul 30, 2003, at 16:49 US/Pacific, Ted Grant wrote: > > > Hi Feli, > Let's get this part out of the way first. > >>> I understand that it is completely unacceptable to manipulate a image > intended for journalistic purposes, but didn't understand if that > included > something like this. I didn't study journalism, so I am not familiar > with > the standards of the profession.<<< > > When you are fiddling / cropping or any other manipulation of a > photograph > for your own use do whatever with it that makes you feel good about > what > you've done. As it makes no never mind what you do in home. Ok, makes sense. > > But what we photojournalists' balk at, are pictures manipulated and > presented for publication as the truth in which it was supposedly > taken! And > that my friend is about as unethical as anyone can get. I agree. > > Plain old darkroom stuff, burning in, dodging, cropping is done all > the time > and been done since the beginning of time. I mean in nearly every > discipline of photography some manipulation takes place, heck even > scenics > have burned in clouds or fore-ground to enhance the scene and it's > accepted. > But it's blatant computer PS changing the shot to be something else all > to-gether and that is the lowest from of manipulation and journalism > ethics > of the worst kind. In your case you could do whatever makes your > little ol' > heart happy..... because you are looking for better impact in your > personal > picture. And not for use on the front page of the Daily Blat! > We printed out all the cropped photos and looked at them no > differently than > a photo editor would. Besides it's much easier than looking at them on > the > screen when you can't see them all at the same time. Alright, let me make sure I am absolutely clear about what you are saying regarding journalistic standards: It is acceptable to crop the image, unless the cropping alters the integrity of the event as it happened. QUESTION: Is it acceptable to tilt the image, unless the tilting alters the integrity of the event as it happened? It is NOT acceptable under any circumstances to dodge/burn a photo intended for journalistic purposes. (In the darkroom or PS). If it's ugly, it's ugly. Too bad, better luck next time. I'm going to guess that you are allowed to eliminate dust spots or a hair etc? This one is a no-brainer, but here it goes anyway. It is absolutely NOT acceptable to manipulate a photo intended for journalistic purposes by adding or subtracting any content (people, building, anything etc) from the original plate. A good example would be the digitally recomposed/manipulated shot that appeared in the LA Times during the Iraq invasion. The penalty for this offense would be the firing squad. True? False? Did I miss something? > >> http://www.clearsightusa.com/feli-crop.html >> >> The top frame is my cropped and tilted version. My question was if it >> was > unethical to dodge/fix the lower left corner. Joseph made a few crops > and #7 > seems to work the best, although it could maybe be cropped a little > lower on > the bottom.<<<<< > > I see Sonny made almost the same cropping suggestion as I thought to > myself > the second I looked at the first shot. It's the two guys and that's all > there is! > The bus is meaningless unless in the next second one or both guys were > run > over! But isn't the danger that they could fall under the bus in the next moment something to consider? That's what almost happened. I was pretty chaotic down there. > Too bad that didn't happen with you standing there then you'd have a > "great news photo!" Sounds messy. Does blood stain vulcanite? 8-) > And we'd not be going through this exercise about how to > crop a picture, that I feel you are reading far more into the > "real-time > experience" compared to the actual captured image. > > We all do that as news photographers, it goes with the emotional and > physical connection of being there and feeling the experience. When I > first > read your words the bus was about to run over two fighting guys etc and > whatever other enhancing words describing the photo, I was anxious to > see > the real picture and what the problem was. > You're right. Although these two guys really did almost get run over, the shot isn't all that exciting, which is why I started to tilt and crop. About 4 frames after this shot the guy in the light clothes (no hat) went after me for taking his picture. He was drunk and went to push me. Unfortunately for him he missed and stumbled to the floor. Not wanting to get in to a fight with two Leicas and a bag around my neck I moved on across the street. About an hour later I was in the crowd and took a few shots of a punker. I moved in and the moment I got in range he hit me on the head with his sign. Later in the evening the cops grabbed him, because the "stick" holding up his sign wasn't "regulation" size. Good thing my M6 took the hit instead of my head. What would have been even better is if I had, had the brains to press the shutter when he took a shot at me. > My feeling as Photo Editor would be crop the two guys tight and forget > the > bus as it "don't mean nuthin'!" ;-) The main body of the photograph is > the > action of these two clowns rousting each other over the demonstration > signs > and a difference of opinion. And I'd sure as hell have hung tight with > them > and banged off a bunch more frames as their body language changed. Hung tight. See that's that problem. Maybe you had the same issue when you started out, but it takes practice to get close to two people about to beat the living tar out of each other. There's this little voice in the back of your head that keeps telling you that, that is not such a good idea. I followed these demonstrations all spring. It was a huge learning experience for me. At first I shot mostly with a 50 or 90 and from too far away. I shot a good 40 rolls that were completely useless. But as time went by, I got more accustomed to aiming a camera at a complete stranger at abnormally close distances and I started to use a 35. I still find it difficult to do that on a regular street. People are more accustomed to photographers being around at public events etc., but encountering one on a street for no apparently good reason tends to spook them. It's definitely not an easy thing to get used to doing. > And waiting for the one to win the battle. Or got run over, whichever > came > first. > > So my friend put the neg. in the enlarger or scanner and crop it tight > around the fighters and then sleep tight to-night as that's the best > part > of this whole negative. > Thanks Ted. Feli > ted > - ------------------------------------------------------------------- "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." -V.L. feli2@earthlink.net - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html