Big Difference!

I don't get the significance but thanks.
 
Brian Walski, a well respected photographer before this, committed the "cardinal sin" of photojournalism. You never ever alter the content of an image. I lot of people in the PJ community are scratching their heads over why Walski did this because the altered image isn't significantly a better image than the two untouched images.
 
That was a huge error in judgement, it brings into question the legitimacy of his past work.
 

I'm sorry, I should have posted the entire article. I have to disagree with a previous poster. I think there is a huge difference in the two photos.
 
See, Steph, that's the significance I didn't see, the difference. I guess I'm not looking at the photos in the right frame of mind or don't know what to look for or something.
 
In a similar vein, words shifted, or taken out of context, or left out, are having a major impact on the way the news media has covered the war.

From one of my favorite blogs, Powerline:

A few days ago, a firestorm erupted over alleged flaws in the U.S.'s Iraq war strategy. The theme of the criticism, which was voiced by nearly all news outlets in the U.S. and abroad, was that the Administration had underestimated the Iraqis' military capability, had failed to foresee the guerrilla tactics the Iraqis were using, and had wrongly sold the country on the idea that the war would be a breeze. This attack was based in large part on a quote from Lt. Gen. William Wallace, who allegedly said that "The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we war-gamed against," and Vice President Cheney's alleged statement that Saddam's government was "a house of cards."

It turns out, however, that both of those reported statements are incorrect. The New York Times' corrections page is an endless source of amusement, but occasionally it conveys deadly serious information. Yesterday, the Times acknowledged that the quote that it (and, following the Times' lead, hundreds of other news sources) attributed to Cheney was incorrect:

"A front-page news analysis article on Sunday about the political perils faced by President Bush over the war with Iraq misattributed a comment about Saddam Hussein's government being 'a house of cards.' While some American officials had used the phrase to predict a shorter conflict and a quick collapse of the Iraqi leadership, Vice President Dick Cheney was not among them." Oddly, the Times does not identify any of these "American officials," nor does it explain why the quote was falsely attributed to Cheney. In fact, the Administration, from the President on down, has gone to great lengths to warn the public about the risks and dangers of war with Iraq.

Today's correction page acknowledges a similar error with regard to the quote famously attributed to Lt. Gen. Wallace:

"A front-page article on Tuesday about criticism voiced by American military officers in Iraq over war plans omitted two words from an earlier comment by Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of V Corps. General Wallace had said (with the omission indicated by uppercasing), 'The enemy we're fighting is A BIT different from the one we war-gamed against.'"

The misquote of Gen. Wallace was repeated by nearly every newspaper and magazine in the world, although a few did get it right. Now that the nay-saying of the past few days is over, the Times' errors will no doubt be forgotten. But they shouldn't be. The Times was once regarded as one of our leading newspapers, and it is still respected by a substantial (albeit fast-declining) number of people. The Times is not alone in its willingness to bend the facts to advance its liberal political agenda, but it is one of the worst offenders and is, therefore, one of our least reliable news sources.
 
It's an issue of integrity and credibility. It brings into question his other work.
 
As a semi-pro photographer, I wouldn't lump the photo alteration into the same classification as misquoting Wallace or others. I still feel that the alteration was purely for composition purposes. The "message" to the reader isn't really any different between the two unaltered images and the faked one. Here's a journalistic story about the photo that got Brian Walski fired:
Poynteronline
Posted, Apr. 2, 2003
Updated, Apr. 3, 2003

L.A. Times Photographer Fired Over Altered Image

By Kenny F. Irby

Contributors: Larry Larsen

April 1 may forever haunt Colin Crawford, Los Angeles Times Director of Photography, and Brian Walski, a staff photographer covering the war in Iraq for the paper.

That was the day Walski was fired, after it was revealed that a photo he submitted on Sunday was actually a composite of two images he had captured.

The photo was shared primarily with other Tribune properties via Newscom, the company's internal picture distribution service. Both the Hartford Courant and The Chicago Tribune used the photograph prominently on Monday.

Thom McGuire, the Courant's Assistant Managing Editor for Photography & Graphics, says he is still "sick to my stomach over the whole episode."

On Sunday night, McGuire had edited about 500 pictures from various services when he saw the picture from Walski. He liked the image so much that he called the Times for additional caption information, then published the image across six columns on the front page.

"It was a great image," McGuire says, "and I missed the manipulation."

Others did not. A Courant employee was looking through images for a friend and noticed what appeared to be duplication in the picture. The employee brought it to the attention of the copy desk, which then immediately alerted McGuire.

"After about a 600 percent magnification in Photoshop, I called Colin to ask for an investigation," McGuire says.

Across the country, Crawford's immediate reaction was one of "shock and disbelief."

"I said out loud, 'No way! There must be a technical, digital… satellite glitch explanation.'"

"He sent us 13 very good images Sunday," recalls Crawford, "We had to get information and give him the benefit of the doubt. And it took a day to raise him."

Walski, by telephone in southern Iraq, acknowledged that he had used his computer to combine elements of two photographs, taken moments apart, in order to improve the composition.

In an e-mail to the entire photography staff of the Times, Walski admitted his lapse in judgment and accepted responsibility for it. In his 214-word apology, he writes, in part:

"This was after an extremely long, hot and stressful day but I offer no excuses here. I deeply regret that I have tarnished the reputation of the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper with the highest standards of journalism, the Tribune Company, all the people at the Times and especially the very talented and extremely dedicated photographers and picture editors and friends that have made my 4 and a half years at the Times a true quality experience.

"I have always maintained the highest ethical standards throughout my career and cannot truly explain my complete breakdown in judgment at this time. That will only come in the many sleepless nights that are ahead.

Interviewed by Poynter Online via sat phone from Kuwait City, LA Times staff photographer Don Bartletti recounts seeing his colleague and former co-worker Wednesday afternoon, after Walski returned from the desert.

"He is my friend and I respect the heroic images that he made and the tremendous effort that he has contributed," Bartletti said.

"When I saw him, I really did not recognize him. He was sunburned, had not eaten in days, nor slept in 36 hours, his clothes were filthy, his beard -- all over the place. And he smelled like a goat."

Bartletti recalls asking him, "How could you do this?"

Walski said: "I f---ed up, and now no one will touch me. I went from the front line for the greatest newspaper in the world, and now I have nothing. No cameras, no car, nothing."

Bartletti thinks he understands what happened. "He got into a zone. He was on a head roll, making fantastic images, and it got out of hand. He told me that he did not plan to send the image and was just messing around. He sent it anyway… didn't know what he was doing, but he did it. With all that he was facing, how did he have the presence of mind? It just got out of hand."

Fatigue and horrific conditions are only part of why crazy things can happen in war zones, and Crawford admits that he "really worried about him, but was confident that he was stable after several conversations (via sat phone)." He contends the firing was "the right thing."

"What Brian did is totally unacceptable and he violated our trust with our readers," Crawford says. "We do not for a moment underestimate what he has witnessed and experienced. We don't feel good about doing this, but the integrity of our organization is essential. If our readers can't count on honesty from us, I don't know what we have left."

Chicago Tribune Associate Managing Editor for Photography Bill Parker agrees, adding that he is "profoundly saddened by this incident."

The Tribune planned to publish a correction in Thursday's paper.

On Tuesday at 8:30 p.m. Pacific Time, the Los Angeles Times posted an editors note on its website notifying readers about the breach of its photographic ethics policy, the investigation and the subsequent firing of Walski for altering the photo of a British soldier and a group of Iraqi civilians. All three photos -- the two originals and the altered composite -- were published by the Times and the Courant on Wednesday.

"Unfortunately the stain of this photograph will harm journalists collectively," said Betty Udesen, a Seattle Times staff photographer.

Aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, in the Persian Gulf, embedded New York Times photographer Vincent Laforet agrees, and feels that as part of the world media, "There is not ever a good time for such manipulation, but this is the worst time. What really differentiates us from other photographers and media is our credibility. We have a history of getting it right, accurately… Our credibility is all that we have."

Nevertheless, Laforet is sympathetic.

"I have a good idea of what he went through," he says, having been assigned to Islamabad during the Afghanistan conflict.

Currently going into day 27 of being embedded, he says, "I know about sleep deprivation. I can speculate that he has been working day in and day out and may have experienced mental exhaustion, and this may have been just a lapse of judgment. But when I look at the level of detail, the intricacy shows that this was reflected upon. I must ask myself why he broke the standard. For me there is no acceptable explanation."

"Being in the desert away from your readers does not mean you have free license to deceive them," agrees Maria Mann, former AFP, North American Photo Director and now the principal of The Creative Eye Consulting.

"The Los Angeles Times acted swiftly and decisively in dealing with a photographer who felt that altering the truth was a viable option," she says.

We may never know what led Walski, a 25-year veteran who had been with the Times since 1998, to deceive the viewing world.

But we do know that to best serve our profession and our readers, we can be ever vigilant and aware of the temptation that modern technology offers.

"I am going to more cautious," the Courant's McGuire says. "Really, it is not about me, it is about will people trust us to tell the truth?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28082
 
I think it is more a matter of degrees than actual intent to decieve.

But it starts down the slippery slope of what IS & IS NOT within "limits" (so to speak).

The limit (IMHO) should be 0, zip, zilch.

ANY alteration, regardless of reason, should be considered unacceptable, and I fully believe in the power of accountability. The guy knowingly committed an error, and has paid the price.

However, I DO think that firing the photographer is overkill.
 
I don't think that it was overkill to fire Walski. Every photojournalist knows that deliberate changing of content of an image is a fireable offense. It's no different then when a writer is fired for faking a story. The act to deceive is willful.

There is some argument in the PJ community about what changes can be made that are exceptable. Things like lightening or darkening, sharpening, color correction, and contrast are accepted as OK. Things get a little more gray when it comes to red eye correction and other cosmetic alternations.

One photographer debating the matter summed it up best. He said a professor told him the key question was "If a reader were standing where you were at the the time you made the photo (instead of you), would he/she have seen what is in the picture?" If the answer is "Yes" than should be on safe ground.
 












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top Bottom