4 ms·

Why wouldn't removing your own shadow from the shot fall under the stated provision that "minor adjustments in Photoshop are acceptable?" The AP's policy clearl

Why wouldn't removing your own shadow from the shot fall under the stated provision that "minor adjustments in Photoshop are acceptable?" The AP's policy clearly states that adjustments are allowed as long as they attempt to "restore the authentic nature of the photograph". Removing your shadow from an unimportant area of the picture seems to fall under that caveat. I'm not saying the AP are wrong here, but the photographer's actions seem consistent with stated policy, and as such banning him for life seems like quite an overreaction. Can anyone who knows more about photography explain why this isn't the case?

mashmac2 15y ago
Well, read on in that provision: "These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction (analogous to the burning and dodging previously used in darkroom processing of images) and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. The removal of ³red eye² from photographs is not permissible." It's pretty clear that he can't modify the background of the image, or really do anything he couldn't do in a darkroom.
- bartonfink 15y ago
  It's just not clear to someone with no photographic knowledge. Can't you do that sort of blurring or lightening of a shadow chemically, albeit with a steady hand? Perhaps the principle is simply that the AP doesn't want to expose itself to a slippery slope by allowing an innocuous violation of the policy to go unpunished. Again, I'm not saying they're wrong for doing so - I just don't know enough about photography to say with certainty "yes, this guy f'ed up and should never work again."
  - justincormack 15y ago
    You could lighten it in the darkroom, which sounds like AP would allow, but not remove it completely.
  - andrewcooke 15y ago
    you can try to remove the shadow in the darkroom by "dodging" (blocking light from the projector so that the negative doesn't shine so brightly on the area that will be dark in the final print). but it's very hard to do well for something with a well-defined outline and even if you could match the outline exactly (perhaps by printing a mask) it would look odd because the detail would be missing in that area. that's why something like photoshop doesn't attempt to correct the brightness, but instead "patches over" with a copy of similar texture from elsewhere in the image. but this is all going off on a tangent. it's not really "science" or even "practice" that's important here, but a culture of trust. and so what the newspapers have done is argue along the lines of "people used to trust film photos, so we will freeze things there and allow only what was possible then[1]". so the limits are really quite arbitrary (but not unreasonable). [1] without cutting up and pasting over and ...
- wccrawford 15y ago
  If removing "red eye" isn't permissible, removing a whole shadow is definitely now. I think it's harsh that they banned him for life, but there have been some bad incidents lately and I'm sure they are setting an example. On one hand, I'm happy they are serious about journalism and integrity. But on the other, I think it's an unusually harsh punishment.
  - Steko 15y ago
    The absurd thing is that as worded it appears cameras that remove red eye automatically might technically violate their policy.
    - cbr 15y ago
      I'm not sure many professional photographers are using cameras that do that.
  - orofino 15y ago
    Not only that, but it then becomes a 'slippery slope', where do you draw the line at what manipulation is possible. Here they've draw a pretty clear line that the 'content' of the image cannot be changed but that coloring and associated items can be tweaked to more accurately represent the scene. [Lets avoid picking apart the generalization I made above, yes color is 'content' but I think the meaning is fairly clear here]
sixtofour 15y ago
Removing the photographer's shadow is essentially the same as removing a more directly visible subject from the photo.
m0nastic 15y ago
Removing your shadow from a photograph is most likely an aesthetic decision, which is an area of reportage photography that you dare not tread. Photojournalsim has enough to answer for regarding selective composition/cropping (for example framing a shot of a group of people where it appears that they are alone, whereas if you had a wider crop you'd see more people). Using the clone tool at all is pretty much a red flag. Banning for life might seem harsh, but if you're the AP, you pretty much can't trust any further images that you get from this Photographer, so it's really the only option for them.

mashmac2 15y ago

Well, read on in that provision: "These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction (analogous to the burning and dodging previously used in darkroom processing of images) and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. The removal of ³red eye² from photographs is not permissible." It's pretty clear that he can't modify the background of the image, or really do anything he couldn't do in a darkroom.

bartonfink 15y ago
It's just not clear to someone with no photographic knowledge. Can't you do that sort of blurring or lightening of a shadow chemically, albeit with a steady hand? Perhaps the principle is simply that the AP doesn't want to expose itself to a slippery slope by allowing an innocuous violation of the policy to go unpunished. Again, I'm not saying they're wrong for doing so - I just don't know enough about photography to say with certainty "yes, this guy f'ed up and should never work again."
- justincormack 15y ago
  You could lighten it in the darkroom, which sounds like AP would allow, but not remove it completely.
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  you can try to remove the shadow in the darkroom by "dodging" (blocking light from the projector so that the negative doesn't shine so brightly on the area that will be dark in the final print). but it's very hard to do well for something with a well-defined outline and even if you could match the outline exactly (perhaps by printing a mask) it would look odd because the detail would be missing in that area. that's why something like photoshop doesn't attempt to correct the brightness, but instead "patches over" with a copy of similar texture from elsewhere in the image. but this is all going off on a tangent. it's not really "science" or even "practice" that's important here, but a culture of trust. and so what the newspapers have done is argue along the lines of "people used to trust film photos, so we will freeze things there and allow only what was possible then[1]". so the limits are really quite arbitrary (but not unreasonable). [1] without cutting up and pasting over and ...
wccrawford 15y ago
If removing "red eye" isn't permissible, removing a whole shadow is definitely now. I think it's harsh that they banned him for life, but there have been some bad incidents lately and I'm sure they are setting an example. On one hand, I'm happy they are serious about journalism and integrity. But on the other, I think it's an unusually harsh punishment.
- Steko 15y ago
  The absurd thing is that as worded it appears cameras that remove red eye automatically might technically violate their policy.
  - cbr 15y ago
    I'm not sure many professional photographers are using cameras that do that.
- orofino 15y ago
  Not only that, but it then becomes a 'slippery slope', where do you draw the line at what manipulation is possible. Here they've draw a pretty clear line that the 'content' of the image cannot be changed but that coloring and associated items can be tweaked to more accurately represent the scene. [Lets avoid picking apart the generalization I made above, yes color is 'content' but I think the meaning is fairly clear here]

sixtofour 15y ago

Removing the photographer's shadow is essentially the same as removing a more directly visible subject from the photo.

m0nastic 15y ago

Removing your shadow from a photograph is most likely an aesthetic decision, which is an area of reportage photography that you dare not tread. Photojournalsim has enough to answer for regarding selective composition/cropping (for example framing a shot of a group of people where it appears that they are alone, whereas if you had a wider crop you'd see more people). Using the clone tool at all is pretty much a red flag. Banning for life might seem harsh, but if you're the AP, you pretty much can't trust any further images that you get from this Photographer, so it's really the only option for them.