Photoshop scandal! Although I've seen a lot worse than this

On 5/29/2016 10:04 AM, Davoud wrote:

snip


I must concede, however, that I got pulled into this by the phrase
"close to the line" without knowing the background. My error. I know
nothing about Steve McCurry beyond his striking "Afghan Girl"
photograph (which stands by itself as a great piece of
photojournalism), so I probably should not have commented. I believe
that McCurry shot "Afghan Girl" on Kodachrome. What if it had been
digital and he had used Photoshop to adjust light and shadows before
sending it to NG? Could it ipso facto no longer be called a great work?
How can we know what a darkroom artist at NG did with the image before
publication?


It is my understanding that Nat Geo accepts darkroom type adjustments
that adjust light and shadows. Adding or removal of objects is
absolutely prohibited, as is cropping that changes context.


--
PeterN

On 5/29/2016 5:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

But were all those photographs made under the NPPA rules or for
submission to National Geographic?

As far as I can see, all but one of the photographs have been
published on his own blog (presumably under his own rules). One is
being offered in two almost identical versions: one in color and the
other monochrome. The color version appears to have had a small rock
removed from the sea, near the runner's left elbow. Is that a sin?


For Nat Geo, yes.

--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

National Geographic has very strict rules about what can be done to a
photograph that they publish.

maybe now they do.

http://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/national-geographic/
This National Geographic magazine cover demonstrated one of the
earliest high-profile cases of digital photo manipulation. The
horizontal image was altered to fit the vertical cover, shifting the
two pyramids closer together. When the issue was publicly released,
the photographer, Gordon Gahan, saw the cover and complained.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 18:41:00 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/29/2016 5:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

But were all those photographs made under the NPPA rules or for
submission to National Geographic?

As far as I can see, all but one of the photographs have been
published on his own blog (presumably under his own rules). One is
being offered in two almost identical versions: one in color and the
other monochrome. The color version appears to have had a small rock
removed from the sea, near the runner's left elbow. Is that a sin?


For Nat Geo, yes.

But was the photograph for Nat Geo?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 29 May 2016 12:43:58 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

National Geographic has very strict rules about what can be done to a
photograph that they publish. It seems that McCurry has violated
those rules and his photographs have been used by National Geographic.

In 2013:
http://petapixel.com/2013/01/10/crop...st-photo-dqed/
or http://tinyurl.com/h2rttl6

"Crop Don’t ‘Shop: How One Photog Had His Winning Nat Geo Contest
Photo DQed"

Currently:

http://photography.nationalgeographi...est-2015/rules

"Only minor burning, dodging and/or color correction is acceptable,
as is minor cropping. High dynamic range images (HDR) and stitched
panoramas are acceptable. Any changes to the original photograph
not itemized here or in the NGS Your Shot Photo Guidelines are
unacceptable and will render the photograph ineligible for a
prize."

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...ear-2016/rules

"Only minor burning, dodging and/or color correction is acceptable,
as is minor cropping. High dynamic range images (HDR) and stitched
panoramas are acceptable. Any changes to the original photograph
not itemized here or in the NGS Your Shot Photo Guidelines are
unacceptable and will render the photograph ineligible for a
prize."

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.c...to-guidelines/

"We allow and encourage all types of photography. We love to see new
photography and watch our members experiment with creative styles
and techniques. We are device agnostic, happy to see images from
full-frame DSLRs, film cameras, smartphones, and others. Our
biggest ask is that the photos stay true to your personal vision
and to what you saw. Please avoid heavy-handed processing. We want
to see the world through your eyes, not through the excessive use
of editing tools. If the photograph is manipulated, please describe
your process in the caption. Below are some basic photo guidelines.

....

BURNING AND DODGING: Brightening or darkening specific areas in an
image is allowed but should be kept to a minimum and not done to
the point where it is obvious. Your goal in using digital darkroom
techniques should only be to adjust the dynamic tonal range and
color balance of an image so that it more closely resembles what
you saw and communicates the mood of the scene.

CROPPING: Cropping is allowed, but composing the image in-camera is
always ideal.

CLONING: Cloning is not allowed.

BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHY: Converting your color photos to black
and white is acceptable.

STITCHED PANORAMAS: These are allowed only if the segments were all
made within the same time frame. Don't create panoramas with
sections made at significantly different times. Do not change focal
length while creating a stitched image. Do not stretch the meaning
of panorama to include elements that weren't in the scene as you
saw it. If your photo is a stitched image, please indicate so in
the caption.

COMPOSITE OR HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE (HDR): These shots are allowed only
if the combined parts are made at the same time. Don't submit final
images where the foreground was shot at noon and the sky at sunset.
If your photo is an HDR image, please indicate this in the caption.

FILTERS: We allow filters on photographs. We ask that you please
include a description of how the style was achieved and which
filter or technique was used. Use discretion, however, as
overprocessing can often make the photo look cartoonish."
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 29 May 2016 18:28:24 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/29/2016 10:04 AM, Davoud wrote:

snip


I must concede, however, that I got pulled into this by the phrase
"close to the line" without knowing the background. My error. I know
nothing about Steve McCurry beyond his striking "Afghan Girl"
photograph (which stands by itself as a great piece of
photojournalism), so I probably should not have commented. I believe
that McCurry shot "Afghan Girl" on Kodachrome. What if it had been
digital and he had used Photoshop to adjust light and shadows before
sending it to NG? Could it ipso facto no longer be called a great work?
How can we know what a darkroom artist at NG did with the image before
publication?


It is my understanding that Nat Geo accepts darkroom type adjustments
that adjust light and shadows. Adding or removal of objects is
absolutely prohibited, as is cropping that changes context.

The rules seem to be so clear and hand fast that it would be
extraordinary if he did the things which he has done to photographs
for National Geographic.


There is one possibility: The NG got the untampered original and the
altered versions he kept for himself.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 29 May 2016 20:40:57 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

--- snip ---

I think the line has always been established. A newspaper, for
example, that employs a staff photographer has the right to expect
that photographs submitted by that photographer authentically
represent what was photographed. They have the right to expect that
the photograph submitted was taken by the person who claims to have
taken it.

I would not expect a newspaper to forensically examine their
employee's photographs unless some red flag had been raised. A red
flag like an addition or subtraction from a scene.

But that is not anything like the situation in which the Petapixel
photographs were presented. What you are saying is that news paper
photographer is not allowed any artistic license even when he takes
photographs for his own entertainment.

No, I'm not saying that at all. A newspaper photographer is free to
alter photographs...as long as the photographs are identified as
altered. He can certainly have a blog site where he displays his
altered photographs and identifies them as altered.

You are evading my point. Either that or you are arguing that when a
person employed as a newspaper photographer in his private capacity
produces photographs for his own purposes he is obliged to identify
any of his photographs so affected as altered. This is an
extraordinarily rigorous standard.

You regularly take photographs of junior baseball and football. If I
remember correctly you are the official photographer for one or more
teams and produce team photographs for different purposes. You are
also well known in this news group for your photoshop skills and you
have on a number of occasions demonstrated your use of them to remove
what you take to be visually offending features. You have also
criticised photographs shown by others on the grounds that they would
have benefited by the removal of objects which you have regarded as
detracting from the composition. If you apply the argument which you
wish to apply to McCurry you should identify your football photographs
as conforming to NPPA standards or similar.

That's not the problem here. The problem here is that McCurry never
acknowledged that any Photoshopping was done until it was brought up
by other photographers, and McCurry's reputation is that of a
photojournalist.

That's ignorance. Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McCurry descibes him as
" ...an American editorial photographer and photojournalist ..." He is
a member of Magnum which body I note
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnum_Photos) is in the business of
"Photojournalism, stock photography".

It would be astonishing if anyone thought that no photoshopping had
been done for the purpose of stock photography.

But I get back to my main point. I do not believe he is bound by the
strict photojournalistic rules when he takes photographs for
non-photojournalistic purposes. It would be different if he set out to
use them to deceive people about the facts of a matter but there is no
indication that he has done that.


The PetaPixel site originally stated that McCurry declined to provide
comment.

Presented with a clearly biased article intended to tarnish his
reputation, his response is quite reasonable.

The article was based on outsider's delving into McCurry's photographs
and exposing that some had been altered. If those claims were untrue,
then McCurry's response would have denied the validity of the claims.
His lack of response was de facto admission.

More likely he did not want to get involved in the argument.

Your whole approach seems to be 'guilty unless he can prove himself
innocent'.

He *is* guilty. There is firm evidence - that you can see yourself -
that some photographs were altered beyond simple improvements in post.

Yes, he is guilty of altering photographs, but is that a crime? In
other circumstances you would certainly not think so.

People removed from a photograph. There was no evidence that he ever
declared that he changed from photojournalist to visual storyteller
until the evidence of altering was presented.

But you wouldn't know, unless you had been following his career in
detail. I do know that if he was producing photographs for the purpose
of stock photography he would set out to make those photographs as
attractive as possible.

He's not even saying he's innocent. He's just saying that he's gone
in a different direction from what he did in the past. He should have
announced that.

Why?

He would not be guilty of anything if he had included an introduction
in his blog, and on his website, saying that the photographs presented
may have been digitally altered and were his attempts at visual
storytelling. But he didn't.

He let the viewers think that he was still operating as a
photojournalist.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:06:37 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2016 12:43:58 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

National Geographic has very strict rules about what can be done to a
photograph that they publish. It seems that McCurry has violated
those rules and his photographs have been used by National Geographic.

In 2013:
http://petapixel.com/2013/01/10/crop...st-photo-dqed/
or http://tinyurl.com/h2rttl6

"Crop Don’t ‘Shop: How One Photog Had His Winning Nat Geo Contest
Photo DQed"

Currently:

http://photography.nationalgeographi...est-2015/rules

"Only minor burning, dodging and/or color correction is acceptable,
as is minor cropping. High dynamic range images (HDR) and stitched
panoramas are acceptable. Any changes to the original photograph
not itemized here or in the NGS Your Shot Photo Guidelines are
unacceptable and will render the photograph ineligible for a
prize."

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...ear-2016/rules

"Only minor burning, dodging and/or color correction is acceptable,
as is minor cropping. High dynamic range images (HDR) and stitched
panoramas are acceptable. Any changes to the original photograph
not itemized here or in the NGS Your Shot Photo Guidelines are
unacceptable and will render the photograph ineligible for a
prize."

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.c...to-guidelines/

"We allow and encourage all types of photography. We love to see new
photography and watch our members experiment with creative styles
and techniques. We are device agnostic, happy to see images from
full-frame DSLRs, film cameras, smartphones, and others. Our
biggest ask is that the photos stay true to your personal vision
and to what you saw. Please avoid heavy-handed processing. We want
to see the world through your eyes, not through the excessive use
of editing tools. If the photograph is manipulated, please describe
your process in the caption. Below are some basic photo guidelines.

....

BURNING AND DODGING: Brightening or darkening specific areas in an
image is allowed but should be kept to a minimum and not done to
the point where it is obvious. Your goal in using digital darkroom
techniques should only be to adjust the dynamic tonal range and
color balance of an image so that it more closely resembles what
you saw and communicates the mood of the scene.

CROPPING: Cropping is allowed, but composing the image in-camera is
always ideal.

CLONING: Cloning is not allowed.

BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHY: Converting your color photos to black
and white is acceptable.

STITCHED PANORAMAS: These are allowed only if the segments were all
made within the same time frame. Don't create panoramas with
sections made at significantly different times. Do not change focal
length while creating a stitched image. Do not stretch the meaning
of panorama to include elements that weren't in the scene as you
saw it. If your photo is a stitched image, please indicate so in
the caption.

COMPOSITE OR HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE (HDR): These shots are allowed only
if the combined parts are made at the same time. Don't submit final
images where the foreground was shot at noon and the sky at sunset.
If your photo is an HDR image, please indicate this in the caption.

FILTERS: We allow filters on photographs. We ask that you please
include a description of how the style was achieved and which
filter or technique was used. Use discretion, however, as
overprocessing can often make the photo look cartoonish."

I have just come across
https://www.nppa.org/news/ethics-mat...-steve-mccurry
or http://tinyurl.com/glaochv (which is a reasonably balanced article
in which it is stated

"The NPPA Code of Ethics insists that photographs maintain the
integrity of an image’s context and content. It states: “While
photographing subjects, do not intentionally contribute to, alter,
or seek to alter or influence events. Editing should maintain the
integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not
manipulate images or add or alter sound (referring also to video)
in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.”

... which is much less rigid than the Nat Geo criteria. I find it
hard to see that McCurry is inconflict with that guidline.

The full NPPA code of ethics may be found at
https://nppa.org/code_of_ethics
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 5/29/2016 5:00 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Close to what line? Who drew this line? Who is this arbiter of what I
may do with my photos in my home with my Photoshop, and from whence
does her/his authority derive?

The line between fact and fiction, and a journalist's responsibility to
not cross that line. Do what you want with your photos and photoshop,
but if you try to publish them as a factual representation, then there
is an imaginary line that shouldn't be crossed. Unfortunately, many of
today's journalists only see that line in their rear-view mirror.

it's not just today's journalists.

altering news photos is nothing new (or stories for that matter). it's
been happening for a very, very long time and will continue to happen
for a very long time.

http://atchuup.com/altered-famous-historical-photos/
http://pth.izitru.com

That does not make it ethical
Insider trading has been practiced in the past, and may very well
continue despite its illegality. That many do, and did it, doesn't make
such trading ethical, or legal.

i didn't say it did.

the fact is that just about every photo you see has been manipulated in
some way, anywhere from minor tweaks such as adjusting colour balance
to alterations that change key elements of the photo.

the only thing that's changed is that compositing is now easier to do,
but it's also easier to detect if a photo has been altered.


The context of your comment implies the opposite.


--
PeterN

On 5/29/2016 7:45 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 18:41:00 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/29/2016 5:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

But were all those photographs made under the NPPA rules or for
submission to National Geographic?

As far as I can see, all but one of the photographs have been
published on his own blog (presumably under his own rules). One is
being offered in two almost identical versions: one in color and the
other monochrome. The color version appears to have had a small rock
removed from the sea, near the runner's left elbow. Is that a sin?


For Nat Geo, yes.

But was the photograph for Nat Geo?


Irrelevant. The context of the discussion was clearly about Nat Geo and
photographic integrity, not any one image.
..


--
PeterN