newspaper photographer fired for color correction

[intrep93]

This is especially touchy if he is winning awards for these "altered" photos. No matter how small or subtle, those alterations change/improve the quality and feel of the photo. In photojournalism competitions, awards are based on the photo as it was taken IN CAMERA. Not for how it was altered in the darkroom or on the computer. Minute shadings and eliminating distractions from the background will greatly inhance your photos, but awards are given for framing and getting the angles up right in the first place. And as previously stated - there is a big difference between color correction and color alteration. And he knew from past experience this was not going to be tolerated.

 

[phalynx]

I find it odd that they go after this guy for altering a picture. The newspapers have been altering pictures for years. Kinda silly to develop a sense of honesty at this stage of the game. But, in fairness, these papers want more than anything to sell "the photo of the year" to everyone else in the business. If it's false, or not real, then they'll get sued by the buyer. There are several examples in the industry. There was this one major news anchor who doesn't work for CBS because of something similar...

 

[Kelly Grannell]

that's what I'm trying to say. Not only this newspaper, though, but the entire news industry is like that.

 

[Greg K.]

I find it odd that they go after this guy for altering a picture. The newspapers have been altering pictures for years. Kinda silly to develop a sense of honesty at this stage of the game. But, in fairness, these papers want more than anything to sell "the photo of the year" to everyone else in the business. If it's false, or not real, then they'll get sued by the buyer. There are several examples in the industry. There was this one major news anchor who doesn't work for CBS because of something similar...

Actually, what happened with Dan is different. He didn't take something and intentionally re-work it to enhance reality. He (and his producers) took something flawed that appeared credible to them, and then presented it as fact without properly vetting it.

There were a lot of other forces at play that converged to create that "perfect storm" of journalistic boondoggles. I know. I worked on it.

 

[rtphokie]

This is especially touchy if he is winning awards for these "altered" photos. No matter how small or subtle, those alterations change/improve the quality and feel of the photo. In photojournalism competitions, awards are based on the photo as it was taken IN CAMERA. Not for how it was altered in the darkroom or on the computer. Minute shadings and eliminating distractions from the background will greatly inhance your photos, but awards are given for framing and getting the angles up right in the first place. And as previously stated - there is a big difference between color correction and color alteration. And he knew from past experience this was not going to be tolerated.

Photography from a technical or artistic standpoint has never ended in the camera. The process of a putting that image onto paper has always included a certain level of creativity and technique.

Any newspaper that has had more than 1 contrast grade of paper in it's darkroom in the past or had dodge and burning tools of any kind (including the photographer's hands placed betwee the enlarger and the paper) that today criticizes photographers who use Photoshop tools like dodge, burn and level adjustment is being hypocritcal.

It's part of the process.

Removing elements or significantly changing the colors is another thing. THe problem is that this is not well defined and really open for interpretation.

 

[phalynx]

Actually, what happened with Dan is different. He didn't take something and intentionally re-work it to enhance reality. He (and his producers) took something flawed that appeared credible to them, and then presented it as fact without properly vetting it.

There were a lot of other forces at play that converged to create that "perfect storm" of journalistic boondoggles. I know. I worked on it.

"Took something flawed that appeared credible"?

The correct sentence should read. "Created something false and wanted it to be credible." I can tell you that I know becuase I am one of the few who busted this little 3 ring circus when it came out. From testing out fonts to researching typewriters, this little tidbit of fiction was created out of thin air and extremely poorly executed. My personal favorite quote is "it's not the accuracy of the memo that matters, it's the seriousness of the charge."

Ah, credibility. But seriously, the line between the Photoshop kings, the National Enquirerer, and the New York Times is fading.

I remember the term NIH when I worked for ABC. "Not Invented Here". Gotta love it.

 

[Anewman]

Well I give, Since the printing process is not 100% accurate the paper should allow photographers to change colors of the Golden Gate bridge(or anything else) if it would create a better image. Any paper that attempts accuracy is being hypocritical.

And

Since steroids have been around for a long time, still have legal uses(for injuries), and been used by athletes for decades. If MLB starts suspending players that test positive today, they are being hypocritical.


It all matters not, the debate about the policy should have been addressed by the photographer B4 submitting altered photos. If he felt the policy was hypocritical he was free to find a job elsewhere.

 

[Yellow_Stitch]

The very act of photography alters the scene captured. If I adjust the aperture to render an intervening fence effectively invisible, I have removed a potentially critical element. Even framing can be seen as altering reality or at the least as "selective reality."

 

[Geoff_M]

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.

The newspapers policy reads: "No colors will be altered from the original scene photographed." I think you are confusing "correction" with "alteration". If the photographer had only made a white balance correction, punched up the saturation a bit, adjusted the curve, or something similar I don't think he would have run afoul of the policy. But that's not what he did... he altered the basic color of the sky from brownish-gray to red and added a halo around the sun. That's not "color correction", that's manipulation.... it's pretty cut and dry.

For the record, here's the Observer's complete policy on the issue:

Photo guideline policy

1. Adjustments to any image will be limited to standard industry "dodging and burning" practices to accurately reflect the scene which was photographed.
2. No colors will be altered from the original scene photographed. This includes excessive changes in density and saturation levels.
3. Backgrounds cannot be eliminated ("burned down") or aggressively toned under any circumstance.
4. All original digital images must be downloaded into Pix Box for editing or review if necessary. When transmitting on location, original files will be downloaded upon return. All printouts for editing will be from original digital camera files.
5. Cloning (rubber stamp tool in Photoshop) can only be used as a touch up tool for excessive dust or other imperfections.
6. All photos prepared for contests will follow the Observer's photo correction guidelines and should be toned as originally corrected by the photographer.
7. Photo illustrations are the only format where our correction guidelines do not need to be followed. The image must clearly be an illustration (not confused with a documentary image) and labeled photo illustration.
8. Backgrounds of an image will not be dropped out or cloned without the specific approval of a photo editor during the page design process. These images should be bylined as photo illustrations.

http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=46958

If you'll note, he also seemed to violate Policy #4, it appears he didn't submit the original file, but instead the photographer altered photo. In reading the full policy, one thing becomes clear, adjustments are allowed as long as they are not "excessive" or overly "agressive". It would be hard to argue that turning a brownish-gray sky into a bright red/orange one with an added halo is only a minor "tweak".

There's a rule of thumb used in the media work to define photo manipulation: If someone standing next to the photographer when the photo was taken would have been able to see the exact same thing, then it's not manipulation... if they wouldn't have been able to, then it is manipulation. Based on the Observer's description ("brownish-gray"), it may be that the sun in the photo was actually obscured by smoke. If so, then a person standing next to the photographer would not have seen a bright red/orange sun with an added halo. I understand that the photographer said that's the way he remembered it, but adjusting something based on a memory is a very problematic notion. The paper's policy isn't to prevent someone of color correcting an image taken under florescent lights with the WB set to Direct Sunlight, it's to prevent things like someone changing a house color in a photo from blue to green in the name of image Aesthetics. If the photographer thought the color was off due to the exposure used, then perhaps he should have discussed it with a photo editor instead of taking the "correction" into this own hands. Especially, given the fact that he was given a smackdown by his employer after the 2003 contest incident. I've read threads on-line from people that have worked with the guy and are dumbfonded that he even considered submitting a Photoshopped image after the 2003 debacle.

As for the notion floated that newspapers do this sort of thing "all of the time", I'd disagree. Newspapers have been very sensitive about their photographers when this sort of manipulation. Plenty of others have been fired or reprimanded for such actions. Kelly, I don't know about the details of the two instances you mention, but for starters were the images marked as "photo illustrations"? If so, that the journalistic term for a intentionally manipulated photo used as a story illustration. You'd also have to know if it was the publication that altered the image, or something like a band publicist sending the paper an altered image without your knowledge.

As for the comments about the time honored practice of darkroom "dodging and burning", things have changed in the digital age. Back in the days of film, it wasn't impossible to fake an image in the darkroom, but it wasn't easy and such fakery often left pretty obvious signs of its occurance. Using the "Hand of God" (as D&B'ing is also called) wasn't considered a big deal. Fast forward to today and the ease that images may be digitally altered. The old saying "The camera doesn't lie" died in 1982 when National Geographic used a computer digitizer to publish the faked cover photo of two impossibly cut-n-pasted Egyptian pyramids. That triggered a lot of ethical discussions in the journalism world about what was, and wasn't, photo manipulation. These debated intensified as digital photography moved from the computer lab and super-computers to the field. In some circles, even things like image sharpening is a borderline "no-no".

 

[AZ JazzyJ]

It will be interesting to see how society deals with this as electronification of images becomes more pervasive. As we move away from an analog existence to one that is more digital, people are struggling to maintain a grasp of what they thought reality was. It's interesting that photography has always been judged differently than other artistic media. Few people question an artist of a painting if they choose not to include certain elements within a painting or illustration yet if that same artist utilizes a camera and a computer then the result is immediately brought into question. The question becomes, when does a photograph cease to be a form of artistic expression and become an artifact of evidence? Are readers of a newspaper less likely to believe the journalistic integrity of a story if an accompanying photograph is not "prestine" in format directly from a camera? Is the photo any less authentic if the photographer modifies their point of view by cropping before hitting the shutter release? If I choose not to include something in the photo when I take the photo does that make the picture less "real"? We've all at one time taken a shot where we have forced perspective or hid things from the viewer in the name of art or composition. How much different is that versus using a computer to digitally eliminate a distraction or focus the viewer's eye to a different part of the photo?

I recognize that many people will argue that in the case of a newspaper, the photographer is not an artist but merely a graphical reporter who is there to document an event not invent something new. But how different is that from a writer taking notes during an interview and writing the story after the fact? The result is not a verbatim description of the interview or the event but an interpretation given by the reporter. There are countless facts that may have been left out or manipulated to meet the story parameters yet no one seems to mind when these literary licenses are invoked. It's interesting how society tends to treat each form of media and communication differently.

As for the newspaper itself, I find the story and the dismissal to be a short-sighted decision based upon the paper's lack of understanding of the role a picture takes within a newspaper. It would be interesting to know if they have similar standards for their writers and how that is policed. Personally having a sky color modified or a halo added would not make me question the validity of a story nor would it cause me to question the credibility of the paper. I'm not condoning the blatent disregard of the rules that the photographer exercised, I think that if they agreed to work within the framework of this type of literary dictatorship they should abide by the rules while looking for a job where they can exercise the artistic freedom they would like.

Jeff

 

[Geoff_M]

Jeff,

There can be entire photojournalism classes devoted to that debate. Sure, cropping, lens selection, composure, aperture, etc. can be used to give a photo a different look and feel and perhaps leave the reader with a different impression. But what Schneider did clearly violates to the axiom I mentioned earlier. If someone could have stood next to him with another camera and been able to produce roughly the same image (color, halo, and all) using only industry standard "minimal" corrections as what he submitted to his publication, then he'd still be employed by the paper today.

As for the differences between the standards for writers and photographers, the primary difference is that with the pen such clear-cut guidelines aren't possible given the medium. Short of a deliberate alternation of facts presented in a story, each example would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Though perhaps damaged in the digital age, there's also a historical expectation on the part of newspaper readers that photographic content is a truthful representation of what happened. As a reaction to episodes like this (LA Times Photog fired over altered photo) newspapers across the country has placed tight guidelines over what a photographer may, and may not, do when submitting photos for publication.

The National Press Photographers Association issued the following in 1991:

Digital Manipulation Code of Ethics
NPPA Statement of PrincipleAs journalists we believe the guiding principle of our profession is accuracy; therefore, we believe it is wrong to alter the content of a photograph in any way that deceives the public.

As photojournalists, we have the responsibility to document society and to preserve its images as a matter of historical record. It is clear that the emerging electronic technologies provide new challenges to the integrity of photographic images ... in light of this, we the National Press Photographers Association, reaffirm the basis of our ethics: Accurate representation is the benchmark of our profession. We believe photojournalistic guidelines for fair and accurate reporting should be the criteria for judging what may be done electronically to a photograph. Altering the editorial content ... is a breach of the ethical standards recognized by the NPPA.

NPPA Link

There were two items of content in the image: the firemen, and the sun. The sun was clearly altered with the addition of the halo. Does that alone merit the photographer's firing? Probably not. I'd say it's a misdemeanor and probably wouldn't have warranted more than a warning for another photographer. However, it quite probably may have been the "last straw" for the paper after what Schneider did in 2003. Bob Knight was fired as B-Ball coach at Indiana University for merely grabbing the arm of a student that was less than respectful with him as he passed by. On its own, that wouldn't have been enough to get him fired... but after other student/coach incidents, the administration issued a "zero tolerance" warning to him. After that, a minor incident was all it took for this dismissal. That doesn't mean that the administration was "out to get him" (though there clearly were additional personality issues), but they felt there was an on-going problem and they drew a line in the sand and said "don't go over it again". Knight did, and the rest is history. Knight knew the conditions placed on him for continued employment, but decided to go over the line. I think Schneider followed the same path.

Update: USA Today staff photographer Robert Hanashiro addresses the Schneider situation in his latest e-zine column:

A Matter of Trust.
By Robert Hanashiro, Sports Shooter

An old Chinese proverb goes something like this:
"Fool me once
Shame on you.
Fool me twice
Shame on me."

(Or was it Scotty on the old "Star Trek" series that said this?)

Journalism comes down to one very simple, but important thing. Trust.

Our job as journalists is to educate, enlighten, entertain and inform the public. For us to do this, we must have trust of the people who see our work and those who are the subjects of our stories.

A couple of recent incidents have caused me to think about trust and how perilous a thing it is.

Whenever a journalist becomes the news, instead of just reporting it, it can only mean bad things … usually the further eroding of our credibility and standing with the public. It seems every week there is something on the news gossip website that further tarnishes our reputation and takes another bite out of journalism's credibility.

People must be able to look at our work and trust that it is what it appears to be: An accurate depiction of the story we are telling.

Whether it is manipulating a news situation, taking a quote out of context, combining multiple images to make one or altering the content, it casts doubt on the story we are trying to tell. Can readers expect to trust us after they just read about another incident of digital manipulation?

Looking at a news photograph, a reader may now have to ask: "Is that photojournalism? Or is that Photoshop-alism?"

Journalism isn't about winning awards and interpretation shouldn't mean drastically changing the content of a scene to match what you "see" versus what the camera "sees".

Link