4 ms·

Well, read on in that provision: "These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should b

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]

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]