Comments on: Kate doesn’t like Photoshop – Digital Ethics The latest news about the top pixel wrangling application on the planet. Tue, 21 May 2013 09:59:33 +0000 hourly 1 By: Timdesuyo Timdesuyo Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:19:02 +0000 Megan, define “responsible indaviduals.”
Grammar Police aside, that there is certainly a trick.

Dave, there is a simple reason why news photographs must be photoshopped, or put into some similar program. Humans don’t generally have the ability to translate the binary code into a picture. Most professionals now shoot in RAW, which means that they are either using Photoshop to open, and “develop” the photo to begin with, or using their particular camera’s propriatary software. Even with a JPG, you would still need to correct for the particular printing process and media (newsprint/photo paper/shiny happy fax machine paper and whatnot)

By: robert.niblock robert.niblock Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:43:28 +0000 very good article has helped a great deal in my photoshop

By: Martin Kelly Martin Kelly Mon, 12 Dec 2005 04:21:51 +0000 I enjoyed the article.
I work for a major magazine publisher in New York. In my work, I educate all our magazines art, photo and production departments on what is accepted and what is not. Basically, news articles are NOT RETOUCHABLE. I don’t even want to see a telephone pole removed. Fashion and beauty do get retouched but only to enhance colour saturation or improve exposure so that detail can be clearly seen in a printed magazine. As far as the frankenstein celebrity shots, I know this has happened frequently in the past. It was usualy the result of celebrities failing to turn up for a shoot and having no options left to put something on the cover – or the publicist sending the same picture to all of the magazines which clearly is not good. So – it wasn’t done to fool anyone or to embarrass any celebrities. The re-shaping of Kate’s legs is not acceptable in my honest opinion as she clearly is a shapely lass.
I recommend that an image that is manipulated beyond simple enhancements be credited as photo illustrations.

By: Megan Megan Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:42:52 +0000 I agree. I do not think that digital enhancement should be used in this way. However, it should be encouraged to be used by responsible indaviduals

By: Bill Bill Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:11:05 +0000 The news media is finally being exposed for the ‘big lie’: that journalism is somehow a nobly objective field. Photographers and Copy writers have always seen the world through their own biased filter, as does EVERYONE. One person’s artistic sensitivity is another person’s manipulation. The mere choice made when framing part of a scene is adding bias. Add to this fact the recent transformation of media from information to edutainment to entertainment to profit margins, and it is a wonder that anyone believes what they read and see in the media at all.

Perhaps in some ideal world, everyone is noble, polite, and honestly presents the information they have to others without thought of personal gain or manipulating the opinions of others. Judging from the journalists I have met, the news media is the last place I would expect to find reason and objectivity.

That the average Joe and Jane Q. Public are finally realizing this is what the brouhaha is REALLY all about. We are not so much losing freedom of the press in this country as we are losing the ideal that the ‘press’ once stood for. And whose fault is that? The public’s? Give me a break.

By: Dave Dave Thu, 21 Jul 2005 03:00:34 +0000 Interesting article. I’ve just scratched the surface in learning Photoshop…mainly resizing and cropping to send images through email. I’ve tweaked a few for fun, but pride myself in leaving my best photos relatively unretouched. But this is from a strictly artistic POV.

I can see no reason for news photos to be photoshopped.

By: PhotoshopNews Editor PhotoshopNews Editor Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:24:17 +0000 Good comments, thanks

A couple of points, as noted in the artocle, this issue is nothing new. . .and it won’t be solved in a sigle fell swoop. But, in many respected, the problem has intensified.

As Dirk points out, the standards seem to be a moving target–so how are photographers to know?

By: Harron Harron Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:38:45 +0000 Terrific article, Jeff.

A couple of thoughts:

1. Retouching and the attendant ethical dilemmas are nothing new. Digital retouching is causing the current furor because applications such as Photoshop are making it possible to do things that simply were not worth the time and effort in the past.

2. Related to the above is the question of what is an “original.” With film, faking an original was nearly impossible. Kate has a Polaroid from the shoot, and that leaves GQ no choice but to admit the shot was altered. But what about images captured by digital cameras?

Photographers routinely offload images from their memory cards to other media and then erase the cards for reuse. “Digital film” is a convenient concept, but, clearly, the analogy breaks down at the point of erasure. A skilled technician should be able to endow an altered image with all the earmarks of an “original,” thereby confounding digital forensics specialists.

I don’t know. Are photojournalists required to hand in their “original” memory cards? If not, how is anyone other than the photographer supposed to know? And, more to mlorne’s point, are a photographer’s decisions anyone else’s business?

By: mlorne mlorne Mon, 04 Apr 2005 14:12:20 +0000 What strikes me initially about this story is the desire on the part of the publication to maintain the originality of the image, as if that were some truth written in stone. However, as any first year philosophy student will tell you, the very act of taking the picture is an activity pregnant with subjective judgements on the part of the photographer. His/her choice of focal length, composition, colour or black and white, selective focus and in camera cropping say just as much about the subject as it does about the photographer. At what point are we to recognize that the ordering, or in this case the re-ordering, of the world is an inescapable fact of human existence and an integral part of the act of photography.

By: pxlfxr pxlfxr Mon, 04 Apr 2005 02:11:55 +0000 Some things are clear…others as clear as fog. Integrity is not an easy thing to define. What enhances, what deceives? Questions for us all.

By: Bob Roberts Bob Roberts Mon, 04 Apr 2005 01:17:40 +0000 Really, we are in a world that makes this type of “retouching” much easier than ever before. However, one of the most common forms of retouching that we see today, and I’m referring to magazine covers, is meant to sell the product. From an ethical standpoint if a subject does not/does require retouching then a contract should be administered specifying the who, where, and how. (My comments are not referring to advertorial.) For people like me the fun of retouching with programs such as Photoshop is over. I’m no longer the giddy student who wants to create a three-eyed monster. It’s merely a tool and thankfully, a tool that I enjoy. The tools are not the culprit. The blame should be placed on users who often get carried away emotionally and ethically. For example, does anyone for a moment think that the hammer was devised as a tool to kill? Curiously, it would be interesting to visit and look up the definition of a hammer. I would be hard pressed to think that “weapon of murder” or the sort would be listed.

As far as master photographers go Gene Smith manipulated his images quite extensively.; Ansel Adams did it quite miraculously with his “Moonrise” image, quite differently than when it was originally printed; and Cartier-Bresson handed his images over to someone else to be printed even under his watchful eye.

So the author takes take his hammer and hits content on the head when he mentions honesty, integrity and skills. I agree with the first two but take opposition to the “skills” part. Counterfeiters have skills and really should leave well enough alone. Here I would suggest a substitution: “ethics.” The most fragile modification can change “truth” into something else.

In addendum there was an article originally published in the ’80s by E. Sapwater and K. Wood. It was later brought up-to-date in the mid-90s in PHOTO Electronic Imaging. The second version is listed at the following URL: Toward on-line, worldwide access to Vatican Library materials – References.

The original manuscript was inside a magazine that was given away at the old Digital Imaging conference. I have their original “Observations & Solutions taped to my old Mac IIc. Even though it might be a little dated what it said has probably kept a lot of old photographer like myself out of trouble. I have typed it for my post.

1. Include creator’s name, address/ photo # and other pertinent information with copyright on all distributable discs and hard copy images and graphics.
2. Images left on hard drive should include the copyright symbol in the title. Example: © J. Williams:: Cat Image. (The copyright symbol can usually be found on a Macintosh by holding down the option key and pushing the G key.)
3. Use Stuffit, a Macintosh utility program, for image compression and include all copyright information in the “Comments” section.
4. Do not manipulate any images without permission.
5. Do not copy or scan images unless for your own in-house pleasure.
6. When images are scanned with permission, give credit to the originator or creator.
7. Always get permission in writing.
8. COnsider the photograph/image to be a document and then ask, “Is changing any part, small or large, modifying the truth?”
9. Read and understand Information Services’ and bulletin boards’ copyright stand concerning up-loading and downloading images and other copyrightable materials. Ask yourself “Do these information services protect my rights if I upload graphics?
10. Respect others’ rights.
11. If you feel you must borrow, contact the publisher, photographer, stock agency or advertiser.
12. Research and understand market pricing structures before sharing or borrowing images. (See box on stock agency pricing.)
13. Produce model releases that pertain to image manipulation.
14. Retain an attorney that understands the law and what the future may hold.
15. If you are a photographed subject:
Before signing model releases read the type carefully and add or clarify anything you might find unclear or absent.

All said, I welcome HDTV. This way there’s no amount of retouching, makeup, plastic surgery, or well being that will be able to hide those wrinkles, crow’s feet, and acne scars.