3 ms·

I think it is slightly unfortunate that the topic of the photo triggering this debate is a controversial political topic with many contradictory truths, claims

I think it is slightly unfortunate that the topic of the photo triggering this debate is a controversial political topic with many contradictory truths, claims and counterclaims of distortion and deceit. In this case there seems to be legitimate journalistic photography of the event that should be the focus of any debate about the event itself. The real issue with this photograph are whether the digital processing applied exceeded that which is appropriate for a photography competition. Specifically there seems to be a suggestion that it may be composite of different photos from the same event although that seemed far from proven to me. What do people feel are acceptable digital edits to be applied? 1) Global filters/brightness/contrast/sharpening 2) Similar filters applied to local areas to to ensure all wanted areas are properly lit and visible 3) Actually touching up/smudging or otherwise directly manipulating particular pixels. 4) Actually combining different photos (e.g. you have ten photos but someone (different) has their eyes shut in each one so you grab one face and merge it back onto the correct body). Personally I don't see a single clear line where you should stop so I think that it should probably be spelled out in the competition rules.

ra 13y ago
What about artificial lighting? I think it's equally valid to be purist as it is to accept post-processing as a part of the modern photographers toolbox. As long as post-processed photos are presented as such, I think that's fine. Similarly, when an image is composited I think it should be presented as a composite, otherwise it really is like telling a lie.
draugadrotten 13y ago
> What do people feel are acceptable digital edits to be applied? It's about how you represent the image. Is it pristine or processed? When applying filters, it is appropriate to admit that filters were applied. If you combine different photos, it is appropriate to admit that multiple photos were combined. Do you really have a newsworthy photo of an athlete winning the race if you digitaly process a photo of from a previous competition to make it look like it is from today? Is it more newsworthy because it's yesterdays images of dead children instead of yesterdays athletes? > Personally I don't see a single clear line where you should stop so I think that it should probably be spelled out in the competition rules. Unfortunately, morally corrupt photographers will claim their manipulated images are following the rules, even when they are not. I see similarities with athletes and doping here. It's not allowed by the rules to enhance your performance with drugs, yet many top-level athletes continue do so. Cheating will not go away but can and must be combatted. News reporting must be resilient against such cheating.
Goladus 13y ago
Personally I don't see a single clear line where you should stop so I think that it should probably be spelled out in the competition rules. I think it's fairly easy to describe either side of the line even if the line itself is a little blurry. When post-production edits of a documentary photograph change the time and location of relevant people and objects, the journalist has some responsibility to disclose those edits to the viewer/judge. When post-production edits merely enhance the clarity of the image, or the image is clearly not meant to be documentary, there is less need for such disclosure. Even though bias is present at all stages of the process, that includes even shot selection to begin with so presence of bias alone is not an indicator of which side of the line a particular image might be. Obviously the first step is to determine whether an image is being passed off as a documentary photograph or an art photograph. Almost no one cares whether a photo of Sheryl Sandberg in TIME is heavily doctored (i.imgur.com/lFwMNia.png). Presumably, the photos in the contest were. This was a photographic report of a real and notable event. Then the question is whether the modified elements of the photograph are relevant to the associated story. In most cases, filters and contrast are not relevant; although they could be in some edge cases. For touch-ups and smudging, the question is what are you touching up and smudging? A minor blemish on someone's face might not be relevant, but replacing a rifle with flowers could be substantial. A composite to eliminate someone's eyes being closed doesn't change the substance, but eliminating someone's presence entirely would be substantial. Of course, a competition might have even stricter standards but from a consumer standpoint, that's where the line should be. An artistic collage photo meant to concisely tell the story of an event is fine, even if it LOOKS like it's almost real, but the nature of the photo should be disclosed. It shouldn't be passed off as a documentary photo.
- AnIrishDuck 13y ago
  > In most cases, filters and contrast are not relevant; although they could be in some edge cases. This makes me think of the infamous Time magazine cover featuring O.J. Simpson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OJ_Simpson_Newsweek_TIME.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OJ_Simpson_Newsweek_TIME.p...

ra 13y ago

What about artificial lighting? I think it's equally valid to be purist as it is to accept post-processing as a part of the modern photographers toolbox. As long as post-processed photos are presented as such, I think that's fine. Similarly, when an image is composited I think it should be presented as a composite, otherwise it really is like telling a lie.

draugadrotten 13y ago

> What do people feel are acceptable digital edits to be applied? It's about how you represent the image. Is it pristine or processed? When applying filters, it is appropriate to admit that filters were applied. If you combine different photos, it is appropriate to admit that multiple photos were combined. Do you really have a newsworthy photo of an athlete winning the race if you digitaly process a photo of from a previous competition to make it look like it is from today? Is it more newsworthy because it's yesterdays images of dead children instead of yesterdays athletes? > Personally I don't see a single clear line where you should stop so I think that it should probably be spelled out in the competition rules. Unfortunately, morally corrupt photographers will claim their manipulated images are following the rules, even when they are not. I see similarities with athletes and doping here. It's not allowed by the rules to enhance your performance with drugs, yet many top-level athletes continue do so. Cheating will not go away but can and must be combatted. News reporting must be resilient against such cheating.

Goladus 13y ago

Personally I don't see a single clear line where you should stop so I think that it should probably be spelled out in the competition rules. I think it's fairly easy to describe either side of the line even if the line itself is a little blurry. When post-production edits of a documentary photograph change the time and location of relevant people and objects, the journalist has some responsibility to disclose those edits to the viewer/judge. When post-production edits merely enhance the clarity of the image, or the image is clearly not meant to be documentary, there is less need for such disclosure. Even though bias is present at all stages of the process, that includes even shot selection to begin with so presence of bias alone is not an indicator of which side of the line a particular image might be. Obviously the first step is to determine whether an image is being passed off as a documentary photograph or an art photograph. Almost no one cares whether a photo of Sheryl Sandberg in TIME is heavily doctored (i.imgur.com/lFwMNia.png). Presumably, the photos in the contest were. This was a photographic report of a real and notable event. Then the question is whether the modified elements of the photograph are relevant to the associated story. In most cases, filters and contrast are not relevant; although they could be in some edge cases. For touch-ups and smudging, the question is what are you touching up and smudging? A minor blemish on someone's face might not be relevant, but replacing a rifle with flowers could be substantial. A composite to eliminate someone's eyes being closed doesn't change the substance, but eliminating someone's presence entirely would be substantial. Of course, a competition might have even stricter standards but from a consumer standpoint, that's where the line should be. An artistic collage photo meant to concisely tell the story of an event is fine, even if it LOOKS like it's almost real, but the nature of the photo should be disclosed. It shouldn't be passed off as a documentary photo.

AnIrishDuck 13y ago
> In most cases, filters and contrast are not relevant; although they could be in some edge cases. This makes me think of the infamous Time magazine cover featuring O.J. Simpson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OJ_Simpson_Newsweek_TIME.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OJ_Simpson_Newsweek_TIME.p...