Pulitzer prize photographer fired
Nov 18, 2015 16:52:52 #
Nov 18, 2015 20:49:47 #
jim quist wrote:
Fired!
I cannot ascertain whether jim quist believes that the firing of that photographer is outrageous or justified. To me, based solely on the article he cites, my visceral response is, "Damn Straight!" In other words, he deserved to get fired if he deliberately submitted his 'doctored' version of the photo to a news agency. No wonder Reuters is banning RAW format photo submissions!
Nov 19, 2015 08:14:02 #
jim quist wrote:
Yeah, big deal. On to the next stupid thing. Sorry, I don't see the big issue. wow, it isn't like he cloned OJ Simpson into the photo.
Nov 19, 2015 08:23:46 #
If he doctored the picture and knew the rules then he deserves to be fired. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Nov 19, 2015 10:23:07 #
Just out of curiosity, I would like to know Reuter's rule. If a photo cannot doctored does that mean it can't be lightened? I would like to know why he cut the camera out. What is the big deal with removing a shadow?
Nov 19, 2015 10:40:23 #
canarywood1
Loc: Sarasota,Florida
He knew the rules and ignored them, and he suffered the consequences, case closed.
Nov 19, 2015 10:56:48 #
canarywood1 wrote:
He knew the rules and ignored them, and he suffered the consequences, case closed.
I understand and agree. I would like to know the rules and rational even though I will never be a Reuters photographer.
Nov 19, 2015 12:46:13 #
Most news print publications want the as taken photos so the picture hopefully supports the article. A PP'd print could be used to support a totally different point of view.
I believe weekly mags like Time, Newsweek,US News & World Report, etc did allow tweaking probably because they didn't have as close a deadline, and National Geo. always had perfect pictures because they had loads of time and/or a huge library available.
I believe weekly mags like Time, Newsweek,US News & World Report, etc did allow tweaking probably because they didn't have as close a deadline, and National Geo. always had perfect pictures because they had loads of time and/or a huge library available.
Nov 19, 2015 13:27:18 #
JCam wrote:
Most news print publications want the "as taken" photos so {that} the picture hopefully supports the article. A PP'd print could be used to support a totally different point of view ...
Someone in this thread, I believe, posted a link to some outfit that can determine whether a JPEG has undergone manipulation. Can the same be determined for a photo shot in RAW or not?
Nov 19, 2015 15:04:22 #
Same thing happened to my Pulitzer-winning photo of a beauty, firing her harpoon gun. Somehow the images were switched..
Damn it, Hillary! Always hogging the lens.............porker complained that I Photoshoped the background....give me a break!!
I was suspended from Sports Illustrated Swimwear Issue...
Damn it, Hillary! Always hogging the lens.............porker complained that I Photoshoped the background....give me a break!!
I was suspended from Sports Illustrated Swimwear Issue...
Nov 20, 2015 01:56:15 #
jim quist wrote:
Hmmm. It does not seem to me that the "doctoring" of the image in any way changed the story.
So why all the fuss?
If they fired him over that maybe there was more to that story.
Nov 20, 2015 11:12:43 #
JD750 wrote:
Hmmm. It does not seem to me that the "doctoring" of the image in any way changed the story. So why all the fuss? If they fired him over that maybe there was more to that story.
Just my opinion. Though you, JD750, might be correct that there's something more to the story, I believe the existence of such to be completely IRRELEVANT! What counts in the more honorable news organizations, I believe (and hope,) is INTEGRITY of their Sources!
My understanding is that for verbal interviews, source checking and cross-interviews are done when at all feasible, but for Photography? Like my medical specialty of Diagnostic Radiology, it is presumed by the public (and by most doctors in this medical example,) that the image is genuine, which with a little bit of extrapolation is taken to mean the TRUTH. (In Medicine, it is assumed, and rightly so, that we Radiologists don't intentionally "doctor" an image; however, a certain class of imaging modality is naturally prone to "image enhancement," Nuclear Medicine.)
It's therefore more than reasonable, IMHO, that if a news photo, i.e. a piece of TRUTH, is discovered to be doctored in any way, it is TAINTED with a justifiable result of rendering the entire photograph INADMISSABLE by a news organization with a reputation for Integrity.
Are you familiar with Chocolate Chip Ice Cream? It's analogous to my mixing in just one small piece of doggy doo the same size and color as a chip, presenting the full ice cream tub to you, then informing you of my mischief. Unless you were starving and that ice cream tub was your only source of food for days, would you eat from that tub, or would you just throw the whole thing out?
Nov 21, 2015 10:19:56 #
Nov 30, 2015 23:07:33 #
Yes, he should have been fired.
lev29 wrote:
I cannot ascertain whether jim quist believes that the firing of that photographer is outrageous or justified. To me, based solely on the article he cites, my visceral response is, "Damn Straight!" In other words, he deserved to get fired if he deliberately submitted his 'doctored' version of the photo to a news agency. No wonder Reuters is banning RAW format photo submissions!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.