Doctoring a photo...what should happen?

I think the phrase "photojournalist" is overused. Some are, some are just photographers. To me, there is a difference.
The guy this thread is about clearly is not a photojournalist.
I don't know you from Adam, so I wouldn't know which one you are, but I'd think you wouldn't want to be lumped with this guy under the same title.
Just like I wouldn't want to be called a hack, though some with my job title are.

 

See, to me, making minor edits like adjusting the curves and sharpening the image are akin to making minor edits to a quote to make it a bit smoother. I see what this photographer did as something more like this: You're writing a story about the local star prep RB, and you talked to the coach and he has high praise for the kid. But you feel like it'd be a good way to end the story if the coach said, "He is what every student-athlete should strive to be." Now, the coach had said other things that go along those lines, but none of them sound as good as that. So the story runs with the made-up quote, the coach either doesn't remember whether he said it or doesn't really mind it since the quote says good things about the kid. So no, nobody gets harmed and it doesn't "change reality" b/c the coach did express similar sentiments. But is it ethical? And concerning the point about if the photoshopping was done better, no one would've noticed: The issue here was never his incompetence with photoshop, but rather his intentions with photoshop, just as the issue with someone making up a quote isn't that they made up a bad quote, but that they tried to fabricate something that wasn't said.

 

A general rule: If a photojournalist, or photographer to use DifferentOkie's term, can't putz their way around Photoshop very well, they should be fired -- on the spot.

Of course, there are old-timers who still use film, and in some shops the photogs don't process their own images. I get that. For the most part, though, if you can't use Photoshop in this day and age -- even a numnutz writer/desker/editor like me can -- should you be shooting photos?

 

You smooth out quotes? I don't find that particularly ethical unless ... either get a good quote or don't bother. Minor photo editing is purely so that the photo reproduces well on the page, the transition from camera to the page doesn't translate well without it. Again, I'm not in any way justifying his actions (he is obviously not a photojournalist, but just a photographer, as someone else pointed out), but I don't think this particular case was akin to creating a quote. If the coach said something close but not that exact quote, paraphrase it. There is NEVER a valid reason for making a quote up out of thin air. He took the picture, he didn't sit there and set up the photo the way he wanted it to be (or I can assume he didn't).

As far as photoshop, I know that was not important and was not in anyway the basis of my argument, the point was that it is something that might not have been noticed otherwise (and why it is harder to find photoshopped photos).

We're saying the same thing, except I feel you are taking the comparison too far. In my opinion this guy should be seriously reprimanded but not fired based solely on this offense (if other photos have been doctored, then fire him immediately). But I would say someone making up quotes in a story is a fireable offense, immediately. So maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Well, obviously he did, seeing as there is a random thumb and chunks of the fence missing. But that's because he did a crap job in photoshop. To clean up a grainy sky isn't altering the reality of the image. Unless the sky itself, as he took the photo, was grainy.

Again, I don't think this guy was ethical or correct in what he did. I don't agree with changing photos, even in cleanning up the graniness. I'm just playing devil's advocate and pointing out that it was like he cut a person out of a photo or completely altered it (again, his crap job in photoshop makes this argument a lot less convincing, I am speaking on a hypothetical basis of him not sucking ass at photoshop).

 

Just to clarify, by "making the quote smoother", I mean I would take out things like "umm", "you know", "I mean" -- stuff that's just an unconscious part of speech and some people say it so much that it bogs down the quote when it's translated to paper. And I think we ARE saying the same thing in some aspects, though my stance is that just as you'd say "either get a good quote or don't bother", I'd say "either get a good photo without a grainy sky or don't bother, and don't make up a photo without a grainy sky". But I can live with agreeing to disagree.

 

Made-up quote? You're fired.

 

And irresponsible journalists who write are just writers.

Thus my inclusion of the qualifier "responsible."

 

I agree with that.

 

Maybe one of the kids in the photo was giving the "shocker" sign.

 

That brings up an interesting argument though... and I'm not sure I'm advocating either way, but playing devil's advocate here. Some photogs are better trained with camera equipment (or even have more expensive equipment - be it filters, lenses, etc.) and others are better trained using Photoshop and digital enhancements. Both are technique-based and have an effect on the image presented.

Sure, you can do things with Photoshop that are definite ethical no-nos, like inserting a person or item into a scene they're not in, or making night day, etc.... but I'm not sure I see the difference in blurring a background in camera or on a computer. Both are techniques to achieve a cosmetic result and neither changes the action. Cropping is also a subjective altering of a photo, but we don't bitch about it and integrity as much as digital editing.

 

Hell no, it's not ethical.

You're kidding, right?