Another media photographer has lost his job over the controversy surrounding a digitally altered photograph. According to a recent National Press Photographers Association article veteran staff photographer Allan Detrich of The Toleto Blade resigned from the newspaper. An investigation at the newspaper continues over Detrich’s alleged digital manipulation of a page one photograph and whether photos submitted and printed by the newspaper may also have been altered.
The issue pertains to a photograph Detrich took recently of a Bluffton University’s baseball team kneeling in front of outfield banners. In similar photographs printed in other papers , legs could be seen behind one of the banners. Within Detrich’s photo printed in The Toeto Blade the legs are missing. Detrich claims he removed the legs for his own copy of the image and sent the wrong file to the paper.
Personally, I think the ‘powers that be’ are taking this way too seriously. In my opinion, removing the legs does not change or manipulate the meaning or depiction of this specific moment. I believe some latitude should be taken when a photo is altered in such a minor way for obvious aesthetic reasons. Upon viewing the four versions of the photo that accompany this online article I didn’t even catch the alteration until I read the text. The overall scene just isn’t affected by the omission of these legs, in my opinion.
The line to be drawn in regard to digital manipulation should be a moving line and not set completely in stone. Are you telling me news photographers don’t add additional sharpening, or other visual correction processes to their digital photos using Adobe Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture or other editing tools? How does that differ from removing an insignificant element from within a photograph? These are all rhetorical questions, no emails are necessary, that’s what online forums are for, such as photo.net. To read the entire article, visit the National Press Photographers Association website.
The issue pertains to a photograph Detrich took recently of a Bluffton University’s baseball team kneeling in front of outfield banners. In similar photographs printed in other papers , legs could be seen behind one of the banners. Within Detrich’s photo printed in The Toeto Blade the legs are missing. Detrich claims he removed the legs for his own copy of the image and sent the wrong file to the paper.
Personally, I think the ‘powers that be’ are taking this way too seriously. In my opinion, removing the legs does not change or manipulate the meaning or depiction of this specific moment. I believe some latitude should be taken when a photo is altered in such a minor way for obvious aesthetic reasons. Upon viewing the four versions of the photo that accompany this online article I didn’t even catch the alteration until I read the text. The overall scene just isn’t affected by the omission of these legs, in my opinion.
The line to be drawn in regard to digital manipulation should be a moving line and not set completely in stone. Are you telling me news photographers don’t add additional sharpening, or other visual correction processes to their digital photos using Adobe Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture or other editing tools? How does that differ from removing an insignificant element from within a photograph? These are all rhetorical questions, no emails are necessary, that’s what online forums are for, such as photo.net. To read the entire article, visit the National Press Photographers Association website.
No comments:
Post a Comment