PDA

View Full Version : Photo Fraud



seer_claw
08-20-2006, 07:35 PM
Interesting to see, not too sure what to make of it. Its an interesting look at how photographs are easily changed or altered to suit our perspectives.

Short Video (http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp)

I think that the big reason behind the 'touchups' is to gain the larger amount of viewers. People are going to watch and look at the photos that look like they are showing more action. Its all for the ratings, and if more people are watching the more the photojournalists can make for impressive 'action' shots. Therefore the reason for the editing of the shots.

streetarab
08-20-2006, 07:51 PM
:thumbsdow that smoke one was pretty apparant but i was fooled by the tire fire until they pointed it out, its a pretty shitty deal, i try not to believe anything

msommers
08-20-2006, 08:51 PM
Nice find. The section where the photographers use props for dramatic effect I've seen a lot, it's almost a scam! Cool vid nonetheless

Melinda
08-20-2006, 09:08 PM
This is hugely against the code of ethics for journalists. At least it is in Canada! I actually had to sign an oath pledging I would never do this stuff when I completed my degree.

There was a reporter who works for the Herald who got a picture of the naked guy at the flames game who fell and knocked himself out. He altered the picture so his genetalia wasn't shown in the picture and not only was it published in the herald, but it was sent out on the wire and published in various papers all over the world. It was then discovered that he altered the photo and every newpaper had to post a retraction stemming from the Calgary herald and the guy was fired instantly. It's a pretty forbidden thing in journalism but sadly I'm not really shocked by that video :( People like that ruin one of my professions :thumbsdow

seer_claw
08-20-2006, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Melinda
This is hugely against the code of ethics for journalists. At least it is in Canada! I actually had to sign an oath pledging I would never do this stuff when I completed my degree.
Snip*
It's a pretty forbidden thing in journalism but sadly I'm not really shocked by that video :( People like that ruin one of my professions :thumbsdow

I can understand how it is forbidden but ethics are not always followed the same way by everyone. Engineers have a code of ethics too but how often is there discrepancies with engineering.

It really looks poorly on the rest of the profession when people blatently do things like this. I feel they think that the personal gains are worth it, and they might be until you are caught.

black_radiation
08-24-2006, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by Melinda
This is hugely against the code of ethics for journalists. At least it is in Canada! I actually had to sign an oath pledging I would never do this stuff when I completed my degree.

There was a reporter who works for the Herald who got a picture of the naked guy at the flames game who fell and knocked himself out. He altered the picture so his genetalia wasn't shown in the picture and not only was it published in the herald, but it was sent out on the wire and published in various papers all over the world. It was then discovered that he altered the photo and every newpaper had to post a retraction stemming from the Calgary herald and the guy was fired instantly. It's a pretty forbidden thing in journalism but sadly I'm not really shocked by that video :( People like that ruin one of my professions :thumbsdow


you say that he was fired for slight alteration to the picture(his genitalia being blurred) but would that not bring other things into conflict as to would the paper have published the picture bearing the mans penis in full view, last time i checked a 6 year old could pick up a newspaper no quesions asked, so we would then lead the young six year old(male or female) to be possibly traumatized by the sight of the mans penis in a once reputable newspaper such as the herald? hence causing more and more possibly lawsuits/litigations towards the news paper? lol and if this makes NO sense and all... i understand as im totally pulling this out of my ass at the moment.

but back to the subject of hezbollah and the pictures. If the journalist from the first picture of the smoke had been such a pro photographer dont you think that he would have the slightest idea that somebody would notice that BLATANT alteration. i just dont even bother with the news anymore, how are you supposed to trust it?

P.S. the tire fire evaded me too :)

avow
08-24-2006, 10:37 PM
great video, thanks for the post. found that really interesting.

FiveFreshFish
08-24-2006, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by Melinda
There was a reporter who works for the Herald who got a picture of the naked guy at the flames game who fell and knocked himself out. He altered the picture so his genetalia wasn't shown in the picture and not only was it published in the herald, but it was sent out on the wire and published in various papers all over the world.

Was it this pic or another?

Melinda
08-24-2006, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by black_radiation
you say that he was fired for slight alteration to the picture(his genitalia being blurred) but would that not bring other things into conflict as to would the paper have published the picture bearing the mans penis in full view
No where did I say the photo was blurred or that the alterations were slight. I said it was altered. Meaning the photographer completely clone stamped the visible parts of the penis out of the picture. In essence he completely changed the photo. In the journalists' code of ethics, you aren't even allowed to edit out a pop can if it doesn't belong there. There were TONS of other photos captured that did not show the man's genetalia, this one was just the best photo for newpapers to grab reader's attention so he altered it, sent it out and took all this credit for capturing this awesome once in a lifetime funny picture for all the world to laugh at and make a name for himself.

It's more than putting a censored blur mark on it, and a giant no no in the world of newpaper photography. Obviously in the video though, it's shown that people think they can do it and wont get caught. Glad that this has surfaced and they got caught though.

Melinda
08-24-2006, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by FiveFreshFish


Was it this pic or another?
Yes it was indeed that picture

FiveFreshFish
08-24-2006, 10:51 PM
What if a photo was simply cropped? Is this considered as being altered? :dunno:

Melinda
08-24-2006, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by FiveFreshFish
What if a photo was simply cropped? Is this considered as being altered? :dunno:
Cropping and some color correction/curves ect are ok. You are not altering how the picture looked at the exact moment you took it (so long as you arent totally changing the color of a sky or something) It's where you make the picture look different than the moment it was taken that you are stepping onto unsteady ground

seer_claw
08-25-2006, 12:36 AM
Its a very very grey area. With technology placing so many more tools in the hands of people i imagine that we will see many more incidents like this take place. Some may even go unnoticed. Take for example Maxim Magazine, all the models are extremely altered for the best possible presentation, you look at the same person in real life and they are not even close to looking the same.

This is one example, should it be allowed?

Model (http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/bikini/bikini2.html)

Melinda
08-25-2006, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by seer_claw
Its a very very grey area. With technology placing so many more tools in the hands of people i imagine that we will see many more incidents like this take place. Some may even go unnoticed. Take for example Maxim Magazine, all the models are extremely altered for the best possible presentation, you look at the same person in real life and they are not even close to looking the same.

This is one example, should it be allowed?

Model (http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/bikini/bikini2.html)
Magazine and newspaper have 2 different codes of ethics. Newspaper and even news magazines are supposed to remain factual. Magazines are editorial, photos are set up and posed to go with the articles and to appeal directly to the audience it sells to. Magazines are MUCH looser with what they consider ethical. You would never see the picture of that model in a newspaper, even the sunshine girls aren't fixed up that much and sunshine girls a purely for entertainment, not for any type of news/ Although, dont get news magazines confused in the same section as a maxim or cosmo, they're pretty different and work along the same lines as a newspaper.

asuth077
08-25-2006, 08:48 AM
Newspapers usually follow the CP (Canadian Press) Style Guides and Ethics for writing, editing and photography. Essentially CP says that editing can only involve cropping, burning and dodging.

Any additional changes that could possibly change the way a picture is perceived must be addressed in the cutline.

Melinda
08-25-2006, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by asuth077
Newspapers usually follow the CP (Canadian Press) Style Guides and Ethics for writing, editing and photography. Essentially CP says that editing can only involve cropping, burning and dodging.

Any additional changes that could possibly change the way a picture is perceived must be addressed in the cutline.
Yep, that's right. Here's the webpage to kind of give an idea. I have this book if anyone is interested in looking at it. Most of the book is for the style of writing that journalists must adhere to, but there are parts of it dedicated to photos as well

http://www.cp.org/english/copytalk/ct091999.htm

3g4me
08-25-2006, 09:14 AM
Its all propaganda, what do you expect?:dunno:

DannyO
09-07-2006, 01:24 AM
So I was wondering, and this may sound stupid, but people can legally take pictures of say nature and edit them in a certain way and but it on a website can't they?, I can see how news papers don't want edited pictures, but what is it like for the average joe taking pics for a website, but editing them alot?

Melinda
09-07-2006, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by DannyO
So I was wondering, and this may sound stupid, but people can legally take pictures of say nature and edit them in a certain way and but it on a website can't they?, I can see how news papers don't want edited pictures, but what is it like for the average joe taking pics for a website, but editing them alot?
Everything that has been mentioned so far is canadian press guidelines, published photos in newspapers and other matieral like that. Although it might depend on the site, most are fair game, no set of rules to follow there.

DannyO
09-07-2006, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Melinda

Everything that has been mentioned so far is canadian press guidelines, published photos in newspapers and other matieral like that. Although it might depend on the site, most are fair game, no set of rules to follow there.

Oh ok, good to know, I was wondering as I will be hosting some pics of mine in the future, but due to the effect and style I'm going for, they will be edited a fair bit.