Photo manipulation consequences

SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are consequences to
photo-manipulation.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/423...ylink=misearch


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:19:01 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are consequences to
photo-manipulation.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/423...ylink=misearch


"To maintain the credibility of The Sacramento Bee, documentary
photographs will not be manipulated in any way that alters the
reality of the image."

In other words, what you see is what he got.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2/5/2012 4:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are consequences to
photo-manipulation.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/423...ylink=misearch




Adverse consequences can be expected when a manipulated image is
submitted as not manipulated.
I have been working on some altered reality images for my monthly club
competition.

--
Peter

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:00:05 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:19:01 -0800, Savageduck
: wrote:
:
: SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are consequences to
: photo-manipulation.
:
: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/423...ylink=misearch
:
:
: "To maintain the credibility of The Sacramento Bee, documentary
: photographs will not be manipulated in any way that alters the
: reality of the image."
:
: In other words, what you see is what he got.

Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the image"
mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the birds,
the flowers, and the frog?

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:00:05 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:19:01 -0800, Savageduck
: wrote:
:
: SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are consequences to
: photo-manipulation.
:
:
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/423...ylink=misearch
:
:
: "To maintain the credibility of The Sacramento Bee, documentary
: photographs will not be manipulated in any way that alters the
: reality of the image."
:
: In other words, what you see is what he got.

Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the
image"
mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the
birds,
the flowers, and the frog?



At some level there is no "reality"; at one a little closer to What You See
Is All There Is, is
http://www.creativepro.com/article/a...re-manipulated

--
Frank ess

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 17:36:25 -0800, "Frank S"
wrote:


"Robert Coe" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:00:05 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:19:01 -0800, Savageduck
: wrote:
:
: SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are consequences to
: photo-manipulation.
:
:
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/423...ylink=misearch
:
:
: "To maintain the credibility of The Sacramento Bee, documentary
: photographs will not be manipulated in any way that alters the
: reality of the image."
:
: In other words, what you see is what he got.

Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the
image"
mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the
birds,
the flowers, and the frog?



At some level there is no "reality"; at one a little closer to What You See
Is All There Is, is
http://www.creativepro.com/article/a...re-manipulated

I doubt if that level of reality changing is what the editor of the
Sacramento Bee was objecting to. But putting in an Egret, or
Sunflowers that weren't originally there could be expected to raise
the editor's ire. So too could increasing the size of the flames in a
fire.

Clearly the editor wants the photographs to depict what was there at
the time and producing something that was literally a figment of the
photographer's imagination doesn't fit that bill.

There have been other similarly altered news photographs. I recall the
photograph of the launch of a number of Iranian intermediate range
missiles in which the trails of two which failed were edited out and
replaced by grafted in trails from other successful rockets. I know
there have been other similar examples.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2012-02-07 17:55:15 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 17:36:25 -0800, "Frank S"
wrote:


"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:00:05 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:19:01 -0800, Savageduck
: wrote:
:
: SacBee photographer Bryan Patrick has learned there are consequences to
: photo-manipulation.
:
:
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/423...ylink=misearch
:
:
: "To maintain the credibility of The Sacramento Bee, documentary
: photographs will not be manipulated in any way that alters the
: reality of the image."
:
: In other words, what you see is what he got.

Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the
image"
mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the
birds,
the flowers, and the frog?



At some level there is no "reality"; at one a little closer to What You See
Is All There Is, is
http://www.creativepro.com/article/a...re-manipulated

I doubt if that level of reality changing is what the editor of the
Sacramento Bee was objecting to. But putting in an Egret, or
Sunflowers that weren't originally there could be expected to raise
the editor's ire. So too could increasing the size of the flames in a
fire.

Clearly the editor wants the photographs to depict what was there at
the time and producing something that was literally a figment of the
photographer's imagination doesn't fit that bill.

There have been other similarly altered news photographs. I recall the
photograph of the launch of a number of Iranian intermediate range
missiles in which the trails of two which failed were edited out and
replaced by grafted in trails from other successful rockets. I know
there have been other similar examples.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Exactly. This was more than the issue of the egret and the frog.
It seems that Bryan Patrick has engaged in alteration of images over
several years, in direct violation of the Sacramento Bee's policies. It
seems that the egret shot was just the final straw and embarrassment
for the SacBee. He knew the requirements needed of photographs to be
used in that newspaper, and the various competitions he entered. He
chose to be devious and to cheat. There is a big difference between
making exposure/saturation/contrast adjustments and changing the
elements of the captured scene and the relationship of subject animals,
individuals, or magnitude of physical phenomena such as flames.

It is also worth noting that along with being fired, he was stripped of
several professional level prizes and awards.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Robert Coe" wrote

Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the image"
mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the
birds,
the flowers, and the frog?


The rules of the game in photojournalism are simple--no
Photoshop. period. what you see is what you get. If you break the rules,
you lose the game. What's so hard to understand?

Chris

On 2/7/2012 11:25 PM, Chris Pisarra wrote:
"Robert Coe" wrote

Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the image"
mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the
birds,
the flowers, and the frog?


The rules of the game in photojournalism are simple--no
Photoshop. period. what you see is what you get. If you break the rules,
you lose the game. What's so hard to understand?

Its VERY hard to understand! You can't use "Curves"? "Highlight-Shadow"?
Color temperature correction? Lateral CA correction?

Perspective correction for architecturals? (But you can use PC lenses?)

Doug McDonald

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:25:49 -0800, "Chris Pisarra" wrote:
: "Robert Coe" wrote
:
: Fair enough. And what, exactly, does "that alters the reality of the image"
: mean? And how, exactly, does that definition apply to the images of the
: birds, the flowers, and the frog?
:
: The rules of the game in photojournalism are simple--no Photoshop. period.
: what you see is what you get. If you break the rules, you lose the game.
: What's so hard to understand?

Since you ask, it's how you can say such a thing with a straight face. The
rules, in this case, are whatever the Sacramento Bee says they are. And their
rules contain a vague clause (quoted above) that's open to pretty much
whatever interpretation suits the interpreter. That may be simple to you, but
it's not very simple to me. Does the use of Photoshop sometimes, always, or
never "alter the reality of the image"? Well, yes and/or no. If you think you
can explain it definitively, please feel free to try.

Bob