Doctoring a photo...what should happen?

I'll echo what seems to be the general consensus - that's a pretty blatant disregard for the ethics of the business. As pete said, imagine the fall out if a writer was found altering material. All hell would break loose.

 

On the firing, I am presuming that this is a smaller paper and it's possible the newspapers policy may not have been spelled out to the lad.

FWIW, in the past, it was extremely common to "retouch" or "lighten" or "use white-out on" prints of photographs that were going into the paper.

 

Fired. Not even a question.

It happened at my shop a few years ago. Guy was a shooter in this community for more than 30 years, friends with the editor since high school. Fired him on the spot.

 

Yes, photogs adjust the curves, brightness and sharpness. They may even use the color balance or dodge tools. But they aren't cutting and pasting portions of the lawn, cloning floating thumbs and blackening the sky, like the photog in question allegedly did.

 

I'd just make sure that the rules were discussed with Salvidor Dali there before wielding the machete.

 

Here's what I don't get: Why would you randomly insert a thumb into another part of the photo?

 

I guess their work is only worthy of one thumb up from Ebert.

 

Maybe he's trying to hide an entire body in his portfolio.

 

My guess is that this photog used the cloning tool to do the blackening, and happened to catch the guy's hand ... so a tip of an extra finger is floating in air.

 

So he was sloppy and careless?

Apparently, he never heard of the undo or history tools.

Fired. On the spot. For not even knowing that.

 

You and I have been around long enough to remember prints.
You're right. But, if you stay with that idea, and remember what was done in the darkroom, and apply it to digital photography. I don't think there is a problem. If we shade up or down a background, that's not a huge deal. I see wire photographs all the time, with sharpening and edging and darkening and lightening.
(Of course I'm excluding the days of "touch up" used all over photos. That WhiteOut looking stuff they used to make mugs and alter backgrounds.)

 

Fired, on the spot. Even if the newspaper's photo policy isn't spelled out, it's common photojournalistic ethic that you don't tinker with a photo to the degree this guy did. This isn't a case of tuning the background a bit too bright/dark, where there might be some gray area for debate or confusion about the policy. It's copying one part of the photo onto another. A blatant case of doctoring.

Did the photo make it into the paper? From the sound of things, the doctoring was pretty bad and obvious. Did somebody notice the thumb in the air before it printed?