1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Sac Bee photographer suspended for combining images

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by SF_Express, Feb 3, 2012.

  1. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    The duplicated plants are clear in the published version. Suspended for now, can't help but think dismissal is in play:

    http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/01/4232790/setting-it-straight-photo-manipulated.html

    Interestingly, the "Setting the Record Straight" titling for corrections goes back to Knight-Ridder, I'm remembering, but that's kind of backward because the Bee was a McClatchy paper and McClatchy bought K-R, not the other way around. So I don't know what the hell I'm saying.
     
  2. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    That photographer should be fired for flat-out stupidity, because the alteration didn't even do anything to make the picture better. The frog is slightly more visible. That's it.
     
  3. I understand why he did it, and I do think it made it better, but you just can't do it. I'm sure the photographer thought, "this really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, it's just two birds" but eventually you come across a shoot that was of more importance and get used to cutting corners. Just can't let it happen.
     
  4. Gomer

    Gomer Active Member

    What I don't understand is how the photographer gets caught. Did they admit it after the fact? Did someone happen to look at the images on their memory card?

    The original photo was fine. So weird that you'd spend the energy to even do something like this.
     
  5. Versatile

    Versatile Active Member

    The background appears very strange in the used photo. And I agree, the first photo was more than fine, it was actually good.
     
  6. SixToe

    SixToe Active Member

    The manipulation (second photo) has more wow factor because the frog is more easily identifiable than a pinkish blip in the first photo.

    The first photo is better, though, because it includes the smaller bird reaching for the frog. The photographer should have been happy just to get that solid image.
     
  7. Versatile

    Versatile Active Member

    The third photo is the manipulation. It features both of those things, which is why the photographer manipulated the photo in the first place.
     
  8. SixToe

    SixToe Active Member

    Thanks. I meant to say third.
     
  9. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

    Fireable offense. And I don't say that lightly.
     
  10. fishwrapper

    fishwrapper Active Member

    I agree. And, really ... is the manipulated photograph *that* much better than the original, unpublished version?
    Was it necessary? An ethical and trust breach that could result in a scarlet letter in the profession? Hardly seems worth it.
     
  11. BDC99

    BDC99 Well-Known Member

    Definitely have to fire the photog, I hate to say. The first photo was pretty darn good in its own right. Definitely not worth the time and effort (and losing your job) to do this. Dumb.
     
  12. 1HPGrad

    1HPGrad Member

    They fired the photog after discovering two other incidents.
    I get that it's wrong. I'm just glad editors are free to fix, doctor, completely rewrite poor copy.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page