Photo editing.
Mar 12, 2024 20:20:16 #
stan0301 wrote:
When I studied with Ansel Adams, Ansel said "... (show quote)
Ansel Adams was an artist, not a photojournalist.
Mar 12, 2024 20:27:43 #
jamesl wrote:
-----
The picture was taken by her husband and she edited it. It was given to the press. She has every right to edit any of the family photos that she wants to. She isn't selling the pictures to the press do they have nothing to say about it. They can either gratefully accept it for their publication or they can be unappreciative and reject it, which appears to be what they did. I feel their rules have become ridiculous as demonstrated by their response to this picture.
The picture was taken by her husband and she edited it. It was given to the press. She has every right to edit any of the family photos that she wants to. She isn't selling the pictures to the press do they have nothing to say about it. They can either gratefully accept it for their publication or they can be unappreciative and reject it, which appears to be what they did. I feel their rules have become ridiculous as demonstrated by their response to this picture.
But they do have rules against manipulation on photos they print as photojournalism. It's not unappreciative to maintain their rules. They probably should have asked if it had been manipulated if she didn't realize what their rules were. The fact the family won't release the original speaks volumes.
Mar 12, 2024 20:48:07 #
Anthony padua
Loc: Ireland
Seems just a little mistake but I would have liked to have seen the unedited one
Mar 12, 2024 21:06:00 #
Anthony padua wrote:
Seems just a little mistake but I would have liked to have seen the unedited one
Y)ou must have missed the post saying people online have identified a dozen discrepancies. It wasn't just a little mistake. There may be more that were done more skillfully. We can't know how much manipulation was done if they won't release the original.
Mar 12, 2024 21:06:40 #
Anthony padua wrote:
Magazine would not accept.Kate.Middletons photo.because it was edited she admitted she had done it herself where does this leave all you hoggers
The edits were incompetent.
Since I am not a photojournalist, I edit as I please.
Mar 12, 2024 22:18:43 #
charles brown wrote:
As for me I have no problem with people editing their photographs to suit their particular vision or need. It is people who do so but do not inform the recipient or public that the photo has been edited. In some instances, it may be necessary to describe the edits made. In the future I can see photography contests to select the best use of AI for the final image.
I think the whole damn thing is ridicules. That apparently was a personally submitted photo. It is not legal evidence or anything similar. Media is responsible for photos that they pay for and publish. I think this type of problem can simply be avoided by putting a statement in their product that says "we attempt to only publish photos and quotes that are from trusted sources. Submitted photos and quotes are marked SUBMITTED and may not be of the same quality".
Mar 13, 2024 01:41:50 #
Toby wrote:
I think the whole damn thing is ridicules. That apparently was a personally submitted photo. It is not legal evidence or anything similar. Media is responsible for photos that they pay for and publish. I think this type of problem can simply be avoided by putting a statement in their product that says "we attempt to only publish photos and quotes that are from trusted sources. Submitted photos and quotes are marked SUBMITTED and may not be of the same quality".
Good points. The conclusion, though, is that AP and Reuters don’t consider one or more Royals to be ‘trusted sources’.
While this is obviously a manipulated print, I’m rather surprised by the strong measures taken by these news services. Their archives contain thousands or photos from the 1950s and before which had to be ‘touched up’ before photoengravings could be made. Knocking out backgrounds was common.
And what about all the retouched/airbrushed images from Hollywood PR departments? I think the number of ‘straight’ shots of movie stars is eclipsed by the mountain of ‘adjusted’ ones.
Notice too, that *all* the stories about this handout ran the picture along with the news that it wasn’t to be used. So much for following directions.
I think the picture is fine as long as there is mention that it has been worked on. They could have cited the source and called it an illustration or representation, and not a news photo. They do this all the time.
Mar 13, 2024 07:21:52 #
Artcameraman
Loc: Springfield NH
What a terrible deed to befall a prince or in this case a princess.
Mar 13, 2024 08:04:33 #
Mar 13, 2024 08:16:01 #
Mar 13, 2024 08:51:44 #
Mar 13, 2024 10:43:08 #
clansman
Loc: wendover,england
Anthony padua wrote:
Magazine would not accept.Kate.Middletons photo.because it was edited she admitted she had done it herself where does this leave all you hoggers
We do know husband William used a Canon 5D Mk1V so there is credibility to the starting content.
Mar 13, 2024 11:26:52 #
xt2
Loc: British Columbia, Canada
Anthony padua wrote:
Magazine would not accept.Kate.Middletons photo.because it was edited she admitted she had done it herself where does this leave all you hoggers
Same place I always have been...how about you?
Mar 13, 2024 11:35:06 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
It's an image of a happy mom on Mothers' Day with three happy kids, well, that's what they want you to believe ....
Why should I believe otherwise?
Mar 13, 2024 14:21:09 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
It's an image of a happy mom on Mothers' Day with three happy kids, well, that's what they want you to believe ....
Because she left a smudge on a sleeve/knee that is a clear giveaway that she was crazy enough to attempt to edit a family portrait.
Had she uploaded it first to UHH Post-Processing Digital Images, a horde of Hogs would have been happy to make all the necessary repairs for her and her edits would be perfection, and/or tell her how and what tools to use to make things just nifty.
It's an image of a happy mom on Mothers' Day with three happy kids, well, that's what they want you to believe ....
rcarol wrote:
Why should I believe otherwise?
Because she left a smudge on a sleeve/knee that is a clear giveaway that she was crazy enough to attempt to edit a family portrait.
Had she uploaded it first to UHH Post-Processing Digital Images, a horde of Hogs would have been happy to make all the necessary repairs for her and her edits would be perfection, and/or tell her how and what tools to use to make things just nifty.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.