Two photojournalistic controversies
A couple of photojournalistic controversies were in full-blown fury by the end of the week.
—
Controversy No. 1: The Case of the Rampant Photoshopper
Carrie Niland, a photo editor with the Seattle Times, recently discovered a photographic deception involving a former intern.
Niland writes in her blog that the photo…
…recently ran in a national photo magazine. While talking to one of our younger photographers about the toning and light in the photograph, we happened to do an archive search and discovered the former intern shot the picture during his internship for the paper.
Here’s what won a College Photographer of the Year award in 2005 and appeared in a Photo District News magazine article last month citing the former intern as one of the top 30 photographers under the age of 30:
Here’s how the photo appears in the Seattle Times‘ archive and how it looked in the paper when it ran in 2005:
Niland writes:
We discovered the toning/copyright issue when talking to a younger photographer who was curious about limits and what is allowed and what isn’t.
If one of our photographers turned a photo like this in while shooting for us, there would be severe consequences. But yet photojournalists are doing it all over the world and being rewarded for their work. This photographer received national attention—both by placing in CPOY and then in PDN with this photograph.
What message does this send to photographers that are doing good work that is honest and straight-up? And how do we help photographers think about what they are trying to say with a picture IN the camera and not afterwards using a computer?
And she adds, in a later post:
This picture was shot for a newspaper, and is owned by that newspaper. I see no logical, ethical reason for it to be altered. Not for a contest (either CPOY or PDN)…
I am not saying that dodging and burning shouldn’t be done. But I think this picture goes beyond “burning the edges down to take away from distracting features” that the photographer claims.
See more work by this former intern here.
—
Brouhaha No. 2: The Case of the Surly Iwo Vets
The Business & Media Institute — an apparently politically conservative web site — reported this week about World War II vets who are offended at this week’s Time magazine cover.
Time abandoned its red-edged design motif for only the second time in 85 years to present a special issue on global warming:
TB&MI’s Jeff Poor reports:
Donald Mates, an Iwo Jima veteran, told the Business & Media Institute on April 17 that using that photograph for that cause was a “disgrace.â€
“It’s an absolute disgrace,†Mates said. “Whoever did it is going to hell. That’s a mortal sin. God forbid he runs into a Marine that was an Iwo Jima survivor.â€
The man who led the platoon that raised the flag over Iwo Jima’s Mt. Suribachi in February 1945 — Keith Wells — wasn’t too damn happy about the Time cover, either:
“That global warming is the biggest joke I’ve ever known,†Wells told the Business & Media Institute. “[W]e’ll stick a dadgum tree up somebody’s rear if they want that and think that’s going to cure something.
The illustration is credited to Arthur Hochstein, the art director for Time. We presume Mr. Hochstein will be on guard for angry octogenarian Iwo Jima survivors who hope to sneak up behind him with trees.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
As for Dustin Snipes, it amazes me that no one caught this earlier. His portfolio is full of dramatic toning - far more than burning, some people are completely brushed black in photos - making a very unnatural look. I like heavy contrast and curves as much as the next photography but I keep that on Facebook, not in newspapers. He employs gimmicky in almost every photo and silouhettes people for the fun of it. That’s not accuracy in photos regardless of how “pretty” they are.
April 19th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Issues like this are so hard for me to make real judgment on. I understand that truth needs to be told, but its odd to me that we say that while still allowing photographers to dodge and burn AT ALL. Where does the line get cut then? Why is it that what Dustin did is unethical, while dodging a subject’s face isn’t? Regardless of extremity, the truth is being fundamentally altered.
Which brings up the next necessary question: Is the truth ACTUALLY altered? The photo’s content was the same and the only difference is that it was as if the photo was shot through a filter of some sort.
As for the TIME image: This is being blown out of proportion. The only reason to be offended by this is if you are seeking offensiveness. Its a clear pun and no one would ever be confused by it — nor is it intended to be in disrespect of the original event.
Just my $.02.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
I cringed when I picked up my Time magazine today. I thought the concept and execution were amateurish at best. What does WWII have to do with global warming? With so many clever possibilities, why go this route? Not so much offended, just shaking my head as I’ve often done since the mag’s unfortunate redesign.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:00 am
OK, is it me, or is the silhouette in this image totally altered?
http://www.sportsshooter.com/showImage.html?id=657774
I can’t see how the laws of physics would permit for the ball carrier to be totally silhouetted when the sun seems to be clearly on that side and is able to light the nearest side of the opposing player.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
No, that photo you showed was not altered. If you want to see the original please ask. If not, you can always pic up the issue of Sports Illustrated where it ran. (The photo was edited by them)
The reason for the silhouette in that spot is from the shape of the arena is was played in, there are light pockets and shadows all over the field from different elements that make up the architecture. He was in the light moments before and ran into shadow. It would be amazing to anyone to see a stadium that is evenly lit when the sun is going down.
If you have anymore questions, please feel free to email me.
Dustin
June 18th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Is that last response really by Dustin Snipes? I hope a shady person isn’t trying to represent something that isn’t, that would be wrong, you know. If that response was really by him, Q. Any response to the main football photo in question?
Dustin is a great photog but he messed up, big time. Better to come out and apologize than not.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:46 am
I’ve no experience running a mag or newspaper, and sure there is quite a bit of difference in the original shot and the processed one. But I really dont see any truth altered in the picture or its contents, just the lighting/tones changed. Maybe thats bad enough for newspaper, I dont know, I just dont think the photographer altered any truth, but dramatized lighting a bit more. Err… correct me if I am wrong, but I see journalists doing worse than that every day in their writings for newspapers all the time! I see double standards then. I may not want to do that myself as a photojournalist, but I dont see why one talented person is being reprimanded for it as such.
As for the picture Mike has posted above, shot by Dustin: http://www.sportsshooter.com/showImage.html?id=657774
I think its brilliant!
I’m actually glad I’ve come across his profile even if only through this controversy.
Bilal
March 4th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
You see journalists doing worse at newspapers? I would love to know what things these journalists do worse and at what newspapers on a DAILY basis, nonetheless. You call him talented, which yes he is, he caught the moments but then wanted to \make it more dramatic\ through ridiculous toning. It’s a total shot to credibility. It’s a great moment that could use some toning, unfortunately it’s completely overdone and thus not photojournalism in a true sense. Im not going to say the image is ever 100% un-manipulated as it is a digital image and there is a level of toning that may need to be done to some photos. But to do it to this extreme is just as bad as clone stamping \distracting elements\ for the \dramatized effect.\ I’m not in that business, as a photojournalist, show it like it is. If you don’t like those rules label it a photo illustration, because that’s what it has become.