Doctored photo costs photog a newsroom job

[john mackay]

<p>The Charlotte Observer sacked a staff photographer for

<a

href="http://www.visualeditors.com/home/2006/07/doctored-photo-costs-photog-a-newsroom-job/">

altering a spot news image</a> a few days back when all he'd tried to do was

return the colour back to the sky. Although this wasn't his first run-in with

altering photos, the ethics of which was discussed by Pedro Meyer in his 2003

article <a href="http://zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/october.html">In

defense of photographer Patrick Schneider and the fictions of a "Code of

Ethics"</a></p>

<p><i>"Schneider said he did not intend to mislead readers, only to restore

the

actual color of the sky. He said the color was lost when he underexposed the

photo to offset the glare of the sun."</i> </p>

<p>What do you think? When is the ethical line crossed?</p>

 

<p>John.</p>

[cooper8168]

No.

[phyrpowr]

Not here

 

I live in Charlotte, the Observer is the only daily newspaper, notorious for it's huge ad-to-news space ratio, and an unabashed booster of the local power elite

 

They do this sort of thing from time to time to be able to brag about their "ethics"

 

As for the photo, that's what post processing is about, to me, work against the limitation of the medium to make the pic look like what I saw

[rustymadd]

I don't know about you guys but I'm a bit confused. I usually lose the sky color by OVER-exposing, not underexposing. How's that work?

 

If he's telling the truth, I don't see any misleading offense. But underexposed sky?

 

 

C Painter

[nigel d]

It all seems very simple. According to the link, <i>The Observer's photo policy states: "No colors will be altered from the original scene photographed."</i>. He changed a color. He had been previously suspended for changing colors.<p>

 

He broke the rules of the workplace and had been disciplined for it on at least one occaison. This is a repeat offence. Firing does not appear to be out of line.<p>

 

The better question is: is the policy reasonable. For a news organization, where truth is paramount and artistic expression is secondary (if considered at all), the policy would appear to not only be reasonable, but required.

[kelly_flanigan1]

There is already another thread on this matter, several days old and still active. Breaking rules happens here two :)

[john mackay]

and which thread would that be??

[rick_m.]

This is an absurd example of grandstanding on the part of the paper.

 

Their printer is adjusting colors all of the time as a matter of course. Newsprint is crayon-on-napkin at best.

 

I suspect either there is more to this story than meets the eye or they were looking for an excuse to can this guy.

 

No line was crossed. Their policy, though well intentioned, displays a monumental lack of knowledge about the process of taking and preparing a photo for publication.

 

Suppose this was a film picture taken on Velvia 50. It would be, in essense, manipulated from the beginning. The same photo taken on Kodachrome would look quite different. Now we scan both images for publication. How do we "calibrate" the pictures? What did the scanner do? What did the processor do? What did the printer do?

 

Sounds to me like the Charlotte Observer has no clue. Their own policy states "No colors will be altered from the original scene photographed." If the man kludged up the exposure then that was when the wheels came off. Not when he tried to fix it. He is a victim of the rank stupidity of his bosses.

[john mackay]

<p>What was this guy thinking?????</p>

 

<p>

<a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only">

Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut?</a></p>