Photo credit question

Came across this the other night.
A newspaper ran a photo of a football player where everything but the player himself had been cropped out. No background, no field, no nuthin.

Does it get a photo credit, no credit or tagged as an illustration since the photo has been altered?

 

Illustration.

 

If I understand the question you pose, then a normal credit would be adequate.

Technically, it seems to me that the photo hasn't been altered as much as it has just been cropped in a very extreme way. As long as that part of the image that is visible hasn't been manipulated in any way, then the photo is still just a photo.

 

It looked like the background had been cut out with magnetic lasso (sloppily too)
The photo had been altered, but the remaining image hadn't been otherwise manipulated...

 

Evern if it was a cut out, the actually photo had not been manipulated ... the image that appeared was not enhanced or altered, just cut.

 

OK, photo or illustration credit?

 

Photo credit if the portion of the photo that ran was not altered or enhanced... cutting out the background does not make it an illustration. Adding to or altering the image that appears makes it an illustration.

 

I'll second that. A newspaper in our state earlier this summer had a photo illustration with a fence from a baseball field. Layered on top were pictures of three baseball players swinging bats. It was listed as a photo illustration. Although, I've seen some papers that just use the term illustration under something like this.