Sacramento Photojournalist fired for image manipulation

[Sirius Glass]

You expect the Guardian to understand the difference? That is like calling Fox News, ... well "News".

 

[wblynch]

Journalism 2012: You can manipulate the words of the story in any manner you wish to present the "image" you desire, but it is just unconscionable to alter the photo.

 

[cliveh]

Film could be manipulated in the same way, internegs, sandwiching, etc, just impractical in photojournalism, but theoretically possible.

Any folks who have been around longer know of any such cases of alterations when film was king? Pre2000?

This is true, but far more difficult. Would there be a global market for a publication that offered film only images? One that could be more depended on to reveal the truth as seen? It may have a possible potential, particularly in flashpoints like Syria.

 

[SuzanneR]

Journalism 2012: You can manipulate the words of the story in any manner you wish to present the "image" you desire, but it is just unconscionable to alter the photo.

So true.

Errol Morris' book called Believing is Seeing addresses these concerns, and the question he brings up... since the picture in the Bee was manipulated, does it really alter the meaning of what the photographer saw and recorded in those few frames?

Personally, I think it's best to draw a line in the sand, despite the very interesting arguments that Morris puts forth, and not manipulate news pictures, or your credibility becomes suspect. Then again, most news and media outlets aren't very credible these days, so the photography departments seem to have become the whipping boy for diminished standards across the board. And agreed with someone above, film can be scanned and manipulated in precisely the same way as these digital image captures were, so I'm not sure how that would make readers believe what they see.

 

[michaelbsc]

Can we put the Sacramento Bee editors in charge of the US Congress? That would be a great, when any manipulation of facts was cause for dismissal.

Whoa there buddy! Truth in government. The Demopubicans and the Repulsivcrats will have your head for suggesting stuff like that.

 

[wblynch]

A close friend of mine ran for City Council one time and they had a debate between about 9 candidates.

When asked where he stood on the proposed airport my friend answered, "I've always been FOR the airport.. (audience gasps) ..er, NOT being built!".

Half the people had their jaws open, the rest looked puzzled as can be.

I wish the news paper would have printed that photograph!

In the story, it only said, "All nine Council candidates oppose airport".

 

[Danielle]

I think its a good thing they're upholding photographic truth to images. The PJ's know the rules, if they want to cheat then like everyone else it can be on their head and Im all for that. If they don't think they're good enough anymore without photochopping, they can quit and give someone else a go.

Just thinking, If all photo's end up being something every photographer/publisher/editor etc can manipulate, then they also won't be proof in any court anymore either... nor video. Who'd believe it if everyone's unsure? - just a thought.

 

[Hikari]

It is funny, in TV "nature" documentaries, there is constant staging. And no one cares. One guy makes a pretty picture for a bird festival, and he loses his job. Seems a bit harsh for a profession (nature documentary) that has no credibility anyway.

But fortunately we have a country that is so interested in the world around them. Which is way reality TV is so popular...

 

[Danielle]

Oh, thought I'd add that that doing that same thing for nature photo's is perhaps going a touch too far. Yes I'd agree the above person, those aren't always that credible anyway.

 

[MattPC]

Maybe it was simply a cheap way for a struggling business to cut costs (pure speculation of course). Bearing in mind how much 'news' is syndicated in the modern world, perhaps there is less and less scope for having your own staff.

And I did'nt read any quotes from the gentleman himself. Seems a little one sided to me.

MattC

 

[canuhead]

I have never heard in all my years, of printers getting creative and "fixing" things. Ever. Their job is not to work on images but to make sure, among other things, registration is precise, ink is set on properly etc. etc., but NOT to adjust image content.

I think the ed is blowing smoke to cover his ass.

fwiw, you should always add a disclaimer in your iptc field that no image manipulation beyond levels and curves etc., be applied to your photographs. content should not be altered , added or removed without permission. It's your ass on the line if the fan attracts you know what.

 

[erikg]

This is true, but far more difficult. Would there be a global market for a publication that offered film only images? One that could be more depended on to reveal the truth as seen? It may have a possible potential, particularly in flashpoints like Syria.

Problem is, how do you get the images printed and published? These days most all printing is done via digital means, regardless of how the image started out. When I worked for a newspaper we were scanning color negs, that had been the process for some time and was standard practice throughout the US industry. Everyone has to take responsibility for their own relationship to these ethical issues. If you run against the policy of your employer you have to be prepared for the consequences, as this guy found out.

 

[rolleiman]

What a strange world we live in. Every so often someone feels the need to excercise "outrage" at a photograph being manipulated, the result being that a photographer gets sacked. Yet (in my past experience) editors ORDER that an image be manipulated on a regular basis. It could be something as simple as moving the ball in a football picture to "improve" the composition.

Yet we don't hear of editors ever getting sacked for this "offence" do we? There is little doubt image manipulation will become more common, purely because it is so easy with digital. Yet every so often there will be this outburst of moral outrage. It's a bit like trying to hold back the tide of change. When something becomes so easy, then before long it becomes the "norm". Perhaps the bitter truth is that pure photojournalism is largely a thing of the past. Few editors are concerned with the ethics these days.

 

[billbretz]

Rollieman - Yo, you are in the UK, right? Not only do youse guys not speak proper English in England, your ethics are totally screwed up. In the US we tawk properly and don't allow the manipulations you might have found common place. Okay, joking about the language part but serious about the ethics, except that UK press ethics are not screwed up, they are just different in a lot of aspects. Acceptance of staging and manipulation of "news" images is absolutely highest on the list (don't get me starting on cell call and voice mail hacking!) of transatlantic differences we share.

 

[pbromaghin]

Film could be manipulated in the same way, internegs, sandwiching, etc, just impractical in photojournalism, but theoretically possible.

Any folks who have been around longer know of any such cases of alterations when film was king? Pre2000?

Oh, yeah, way pre-2000.

http://museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_case_of_the_moving_pyramids/

 

[billbretz]

Maybe it was simply a cheap way for a struggling business to cut costs (pure speculation of course). Bearing in mind how much 'news' is syndicated in the modern world, perhaps there is less and less scope for having your own staff.

And I did'nt read any quotes from the gentleman himself. Seems a little one sided to me.

The Bee has sent 400 workers home in the last four years or so of layoffs, they don't need excuses. And stories I read indicated they tried to reach the photographer for comment, unsuccessfully. Bottom line, he knew he was in the wrong and was treated appropriately.

 

[rolleiman]

Rollieman - Yo, you are in the UK, right? Not only do youse guys not speak proper English in England, your ethics are totally screwed up. In the US we tawk properly and don't allow the manipulations you might have found common place. Okay, joking about the language part but serious about the ethics, except that UK press ethics are not screwed up, they are just different in a lot of aspects. Acceptance of staging and manipulation of "news" images is absolutely highest on the list (don't get me starting on cell call and voice mail hacking!) of transatlantic differences we share.

Yep, I'm UK based...and there was me thinking the only language differance is the way we pronounce "tomato"...ha ha.........As for the ethics bit, many here believe one word sums up the fall from grace..........Murdoch.

 

[erikg]

Oh, yeah, way pre-2000.

http://museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_case_of_the_moving_pyramids/

And way before that, newspaper archives are full of prints that have been painted on and over, with airbrush and otherwise. Most of what I've seen was done to improve definition or to separate subject from background, but I did see a baseball moved closer to the batter in a sports pic, it didn't fit the crop they wanted, which was still there in grease pencil, as was the original baseball as it was captured on the neg. I think in some ways ethical codes have become more strict, or at least more clearly defined.

 

[tomalophicon]

Oh, yeah, way pre-2000.

http://museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_case_of_the_moving_pyramids/

See the other link on that page: 'Churches fight over holy foreskin'...

 

[pbromaghin]

I think in some ways ethical codes have become more strict, or at least more clearly defined.

Where it came from and when it entered American journalism, I have no idea. 19th century papers were usually organs for one political party or another with as much or more twisting of truth and outright lying as inflicts us from cable TV and the web now.

 

[pbromaghin]

See the other link on that page: 'Churches fight over holy foreskin'...

The rings of Saturn!?!? Wow, I guess size really does matter.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Here's a response by a reader I think.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/05/4240864/bryan-pactrick.html

 

[Sirius Glass]

Were any brain cells engage by the letter writer in the writing of the letter?

 

[Dan Daniel]

Were any brain cells engage by the letter writer in the writing of the letter?

Always a debatable question on the internet!
http://www.theonion.com/video/braindead-teen-only-capable-of-rolling-eyes-and-te,27225/

 

[erikg]

Reading those comments it seems like some people want it both ways. They complain about distortions in verbal (TV) and written news reporting while at the same time defending what the photographer did. No wonder our leaders seem so confused!