Doctoring a photo...what should happen?

Isn't it one thing to burn and darken, but completely different to paint a whole new background? And we're not talking mug shots, this was an action photo from a game.

 

Yes, unfortunately the photo did run.

And yes it was a celebration/action photograph from a game.

 

TTIUWOP

I would love to see the doctored photo.

 

My editors took it out of our photo system.

 

Why did that photo run? No WAY you allow that.
I would say the photographer should be fired if you're sure they knew better. But maybe this is someone young who is learning the ropes? Maybe nobody has explained it to them.
If you are certain they knew, I'd can them.
If you aren't, I'd tell them they are on probation and will be immediately fired anytime they do anything of the sort ever again.

 

veteran photog

 

That settles it for me. Like Michigan, this guy should be one and done.

 

Yes it is. And you didn't read my previous post.

 

Don't mean to threadjack, but to what degree does photo alteration go before it's considered not fit to run? Obviously this case, and the LA Times photo of the soldier with his gun drawn are extremes, but if you take the red out of someone's eye, is that considered altering the photo too much?

 

This is why I worry for us a bit these days.

"Fired. No question."

Really? Don't talk to him? Don't find out if he has ever been told we don't do that? Don't take into consideration his overall track record, warnings or whatever in his personnel file (if there are any), time with the paper, experience (or lack thereof), reliability, any positives he might bring to the table? If he's generally a good person, don't try to rehabilitate a career, avoid having to go through the expense of hiring somebody new?

That really bothers me. It's fallout from the Jayson Blair saga, and it's not what management is about.

Disclosure: This is assuming that there's not a long history of this that's discovered.

If it's an isolated incident, it's a warning in his file, a meeting where it's expressly explained what he can and cannot do to a news photo and maybe a suspension.

But I just don't get the current climate of, "He did something wrong. Fire him."

With no questions asked.

Edit: This was written without seeing the "veteran photog" description on page 2. But my concern stands, because a lot of people had him fired, no questions asked, without this information.

 

I'm with SF, as I noted originally. So, Boo, what has been the paper's reaction?

 

First post mentioned that this guy has a wink-wink, nod-nod history of doing this.

First, shame on past management for not stoning up and firing him.

Second, doctoring photos is common sense. YOU DON'T DO IT.

You especially don't doctor photos in such a hideous way that parts of the outfield wall are missing and a thumb is just randomly floating in the air. Shows that the guy doesn't even know the basics of Photoshop, for crying out loud.