newspaper photographer fired for color correction

[rtphokie]

policy states: "No colors will be altered from the original scene photographed." The first time this photographer altered the colors of his photograph, he was suspended without pay for 3 days, this time he got fired.


http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/15141490.htm

 

[Kelly Grannell]

this is a bunch of crock (the policy, that is), even during film days newspapers around the world do colour correction at the plate creation level.

 

[JenLoy]

I'm at a loss for words on this one. It seems like a pretty small thing to be worrying about. It sounds like someone had it out for the photographer and is using this as an excuse

 

[Greg K.]

All I can say is that the difference, before and after, must have been dramatic. And someone must have made a stink.

I can't say I'm surprised that this action was taken. The media is being hyper-vigilant right now. And over-correcting. After Jason Blair, and Memogate, anything that has the faintest aroma of fabricaton, or manipulation, is poison.

I know. Believe me, I know...

 

[Anewman]

this is a bunch of crock (the policy, that is), even during film days newspapers around the world do colour correction at the plate creation level.

They do/did it for actual corrective reasons, not for creative reasons.
This photographer had been warned.


And Patrick Schneider is the same photographer that was stripped of numerous "Photo of the year awards" when the North Carolina Press Photographers Association found he had taken out background detail(fences, parking lots, faces) from some of his photos.

This is not an Art magazine it is a newspaper, next you will see sports shooters adding the ball into some frames to make their photos more interesting.

 

[rtphokie]

Before and after images are available here:

http://zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/october.html

 

[MICKEY88]

this is a bunch of crock (the policy, that is), even during film days newspapers around the world do colour correction at the plate creation level.

did he color correct or alter the colors,, there is a big difference...

 

[WillCAD]

Without seeing the actual photo in question, I cant say for sure that the firing wasn't justified, but on the surface it sounds to me like the paper has gone to a preposterous extreme with the no alterations policy.

As Kelly said, in film days phtoographers would over- or under-develop, dodge and burn, and use a number of other techniques to correct color and saturation before publication. It wasn't considered "alteration", since it didn't change the content of the image, it was simply considered polishing up the product.

I'd have to see the pic to be sure, but off the top of my head I'd have to say the editor is some kind of Photo Nazi.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I agree with JenLoy, he must be hated for some reason and this is just an excuse to fire him. Heck, some of my concert pics was digitally manipulated by The Toronto Star (without my permission). A pic I took was published by Time magazine (Asian Edition) also was colour corrected and digitally manipulated (removing some of the people in the background and stretching the sky making my horizontal pic vertical).

This practice is so common amongst the newsprint industry it's mindboggling to read about this guy being fired for doing colour correction.

So I guess they'd rather publish picture looking like this

rather than the colour corrected version as shown below

 

[Anewman]

Before and after images are available here:

http://zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/october.html

That is not the photo he was fired over, the one he was fired over was of a fireman on a ladder.

But it is Ironic that his 2003 suspension and the awards that were stripped also involved Firemen.


But this is not just color correction

 

[Kelly Grannell]

looking at the samples from the link, I don't see anything wrong with the alteration. The content of the picture remains the same. Furthermore, can the print company guarantee WYSIWYG colour rendition from the digital file from the photographer to the actual final print on the newspaper? If they can't guarantee that then they should fire the print operators, plate creators, print-proof checkers etc.

 

[rtphokie]

What gets me is that these are the same editors that will edit a letter to the editor "for length" and sometimes even content yet feel they are justified in firing a photojournalist who the feel altered the content by removing items and/or color correcting.

Had this photographer staged the photo or digitally instered elements that weren't there, fire him. But he didn't. He didn't change the content he just adjusted it so it would be ready for the paper. This is no different that what editors and writers do everyday with the prose that makes up the paper.

 

[Anewman]

What gets me is that these are the same editors that will edit a letter to the editor "for length" and sometimes even content yet feel they are justified in firing a photojournalist who the feel altered the content by removing items and/or color correcting.

Had this photographer staged the photo or digitally instered elements that weren't there, fire him. But he didn't. He didn't change the content he just adjusted it so it would be ready for the paper. This is no different that what editors and writers do everyday with the prose that makes up the paper.

IMO this is not a debate about should altering be allowed or not, this is about a photographer that chose to work for a paper with such a policy. That policy was clear and he had been warned, he then chose not to comply.

 

[MICKEY88]

IMO this is not a debate about should altering be allowed or not, this is about a photographer that chose to work for a paper with such a policy. That policy was clear and he had been warned, he then chose not to comply.

I agree on this one, if he was suspended once, he was well aware of the policy, therefore he willingly violated it, and deserved to be fired...

 

[vertigo235]

I read this, this morning in the observer (I'm in Charlotte), and I was surprised, but I'm more surprised to find this discussion here at the Disboards!

The picture he was fired over, didn't look natural to me, essentially the sky was very orange/reddish tone and the halo around the sun didn't look very natural either. Someone must have called him out on it after the fact. Apparently the sky was probably washed out because the shot was a silhouette of a fireman on a ladder with the sun behind, this wouldn't leave any detail in the sky at all or color. He added the color. I wouldn't really call it a color correction.

His defense is that he was altering the picture to appear as HE saw it at the scene.

 

[WillCAD]

IMO this is not a debate about should altering be allowed or not, this is about a photographer that chose to work for a paper with such a policy. That policy was clear and he had been warned, he then chose not to comply.

Put that way I must reluctantly agree.

Despite the absurdity of the policy, if the photographer knowingly violated it, then the paper is justified in firing him.

But I am forced to wonder if every photo submitted to that paper by every photographer is subjected to the same absurd standard. They must print some crappy photos if nobody is allowed to do even the most minor color correction under any circumstances, ever.

 

[Anewman]

Put that way I must reluctantly agree.

Despite the absurdity of the policy, if the photographer knowingly violated it, then the paper is justified in firing him.

But I am forced to wonder if every photo submitted to that paper by every photographer is subjected to the same absurd standard. They must print some crappy photos if nobody is allowed to do even the most minor color correction under any circumstances, ever.

He seems to be the only photographer to have had an issue staying within the boundries of the policy. Color correction is allowed by the policy, in the eyes of the paper he took it to different level. Art is one thing but this is supposed to be journalism

If you notice the picture, even IF you feel that the Color was just corrected and natural the HALO around the sun did not exist in the original photo it was added with photoshop.

 

[JR6ooo4]

this is a bunch of crock (the policy, that is), even during film days newspapers around the world do colour correction at the plate creation level.

But an employee may not ignore the owners/managers requests. If the paper has a policy and you do not like the policy then move on. (of course tis is the simplest form. It does not take into account the financial ability to change jobs, etc...)


Mikeeee

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I don't dispute that he may be wrong about not adhering to his manager's request. However, the request itself is hypocritical at best because there is not a single newspaper in the world that can accurately produce the colour of the original digital (or film) negatives, thus by-process itself, the so-called strict policy have been broken by the newspaper company itself.

Therefore, everybody, including the owner, should be fired. After all, there should be no colour alteration, right?

 

[Anewman]

I don't dispute that he may be wrong about not adhering to his manager's request. However, the request itself is hypocritical at best because there is not a single newspaper in the world that can accurately produce the colour of the original digital (or film) negatives, thus by-process itself, the so-called strict policy have been broken by the newspaper company itself.

Therefore, everybody, including the owner, should be fired. After all, there should be no colour alteration, right?

Dont agree, regardless of the process not being 100% accurate you still have to attempt color accuracy and guidelines must be set. IMO most LA area newspapers get it pretty close to accurate, I have never seen a Lakers/Dodgers/Trojans/Angels/Bruins photo in the sports section and noticed colors being off(trust me I look).

I think most of us know the difference between correcting and altering color and/or images, and this one was not corrected for accuracy it was altered for artistic purposes.

In a phone interview Friday afternoon, Observer editor Rick Thames explained that Schneider violated the paper's policy against altering color in photos, a policy put in place specifically in response to Schneider's earlier infractions.

"We have an established policy on this issue and it really comes down to the fact that journalism cannot be about original art forms, unless it's labeled as such."