Toledo Blade photog quits after altering picture

I am not a photographer and have only worked in the post-Photoshop era. With all the tools that are available to alter or "work" a digital photo, what should be considered acceptable? I'm not trying to be snarky, but consider:

Photoshop has the dodge and burn tools, but those are techniques that can be done in a darkroom. Does that make it OK?

What about adjusting the colors when the camera's white balance is off? What about increasing the depth of shadow in a black and white image? Should a simple cutout be considered a photo illustration?

The line is almost a "you'll know it when you see it" one - legs should have stayed in - but what is acceptable when working a photo for publication?

 

I think this is ok because you want the colours to be the same tone, shade, etc. of the actual subject. Nothing wrong with making the jersey of a player looking like the colour it actually is.

 

Legend has it that a certain newspaper in the Gulf South would not have printed McGwire's home run total in a huge headline had he not gotten he second the last game and gotten to 70.

 

Any professional shop delineates these guidelines clearly and prominently.

 

Can't possibly speak for everyone, but generally they are that anything that can be done in a darkroom is fair game, and almost everything else is not.

 

I understand what the Toledo guy did was wrong...

But last year we had a great pic of the 100 metre regional final. We had a close up of a local kid's face, and somewhat visible was a booger hanging out his nose. We debated it for awhile but choose not to run the photo. But looking back would it have hurt anyone to remove the booger? Is there a gray area if you improve something just a bit...or is it a slippery slope. ie now you remove boogers and acne and next week you remove backgrounds and legs in backgrounds?

 

I think that's a textbook example of when not to alter a photo.

 

This is really a common sense issue. Don't add, remove or combine anything in the image that will deceive the reader unless you're going to run it as a photo illustration.

As for the code of ethics, here's a partial list (Read 3 & 4)

National Press Photographers Association
Code of Ethics


Statement of Purpose

The National Press Photographers Association, a professional society dedicated to the advancement of photojournalism, acknowledges concern and respect for the public's natural-law, right to freedom in searching for the truth and the right to be informed truthfully and completely about public events and the world in which we live. NPPA believes that no report can be complete if it is possible to enhance and clarify the meaning of the words. We believe that pictures, whether used to depict news events as they actually happen, illustrate news that has happened, or to help explain anything of public interest, are indispensable means of keeping people accurately informed, that they help all people, young and old, to better understand any subject in the public domain. NPPA recognizes and acknowledges that photojournalists should at all times maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct in serving the public interest.

Code of Ethics

1. The practice of photojournalism, both as a science and art, is worthy of the very best thought and effort of those who enter into it as a profession.
2. Photojournalism affords an opportunity to serve the public that is equalled by few other vocations and all members of the profession should strive by example and influence to maintain high standards of ethical conduct free of mercenary considerations of any kind.
3. It is the individual responsibility of every photojournalist all times to strive for pictures that report truthfully, honestly and objectively.
4. As journalists, we believe that credibility is our greatest asset. In documentary photojournalism, it is wrong to alter the content of a photograph in any way (electronically or in the darkroom) that deceives the public.We believe the guidelines for fair and accurate reporting should be the criteria for judging what may be done electronically to a photograph.

 

How do the missing legs deceive the public, any more than missing ums, duhs, or expletives?

'We, umm, we needed, you know, we needed that fucking win today.'
'We needed that win today.'

Same, but not really. The missing legs don't change the message, they just change the aesthetics. The missing words don't change the message, they change the aesthetics. Altho I'd argue that the missing words change more of the meaning than the missing legs.

So I don't understand why we clean up quotes but not photos. (And I am neither a photographer nor an editor, so I'm sure I'm missing some Golden Rule here.)

 

Well, I'm not a big fan of cleaning up quotes to begin with, maybe an um or a you know but if there's more than that I scrap the thing.

As far as photos, it's really all about credibility: If you're going to fool/deceive the reader over something as irrelevant as a pair of feet, then what else are you going to fool them on? What other realities are you going to hide just because you don't like the way it turned out? It's a black diamond slope and there's no going back.

Added: By the way, I meant "you" in general.

 

Altering a quote isn't changing a news event. We are news organizations. And altering a photograph makes a news event fiction. We are a "non-fiction" industry. (Unless your work in PR )

 

The missing legs don't change the meaning, but it's still dishonest. That's what the photographer wanted to see, instead of what he really saw. It's not like cleaning up a quote; it's like making one up.

The feet actually belong to another photographer - http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-070330bluffton-photogallery,1,1926247.photogallery?index=2&coll=chi-sportstop-hed&ctrack=2&cset=true
She was really there, and to remove her from a photo no better than lying.

Would anyone condone the alteration of this Pulitzer-winning photo? It doesn't change the meaning.