wigwam jones Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003568126 The gist of it is, a photographer altered a photo to remove a pair of legs thatdistracted from the theme of the photo - but since it was a news photo and notan 'illustration', it is prohibited by Blade rules. Click link to read story in"Editor and Publisher." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanscullyphotography Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Interesting. I might have to check and see if I still have this issue of the Toledo Blade sitting my recycle bin. I'm curious to see how obvious the editing is in print. Thanks for the heads up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanford Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 Sean - please post it if you do still have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brodeub Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 Link to photos here: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070406/NEWS08/70406008 Tempest in a teacup. Brian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 Oh man. If there was ever a big "so what?" that's it. I thought maybe it actually changed the substance of the newsworthiness or impact of the photo in some way. Gimme a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 So if its ok to break the rules of your employer; when it the line drawn again? is it a little bit more doctoring? a little bit more theft? a little bit of lies in an article? a little bit of virus/worms launched on the companies severs? Or just a few guns taken to work? Normally a pro alerts ones employer of possible grey areas; and doesnt try to pass off or skirt rules. The newspaper has a reputation to uphold, doctoring of images drops their image. Even if a small infraction many companies inforce rules to curb buffoonery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 A policy is a policy. The the paper has a "no digital alterations" rule, then that's what it has. It doesn't have a "no digital alterations unless the changes don't really matter" rule. With the former, it's 100% clear. With the latter you start to have to debate "what matters". It it was me and the paper didn't have a "no cropping" rule, I'd simply have cropped the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 No, of course a rule is a rule. The hoopla around it all seems much as it was nothing (and fairly innocuous) compared to some of the digital manipulations seen in the past that were passed off as "real" news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wigwam jones Posted April 9, 2007 Author Share Posted April 9, 2007 The photographer in question has resigned. http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=79674 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brodeub Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Complete lack of proportion - the world is getting to be a scary place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjacksonphoto Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 If it was so trivial, why do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now