This is why submission of photojournalism images for publication usually require (by the publication's editor) the unedited original images to verify authenticity of events. I think the photoshopped image is amateurishly done. It calls into question the authenticity of many photos. It's Photoshop run amuck.... creating images which never happened. This puts greater emphasis and value on images not fabricated.
after thinking about it, considering how much money they already waste, it seems to me the best solutions would be to
1) hire out a software project to create a "courtroom sketch" and or "wall street journal art" filter for photoshop.
2) use that filter whenever a photo has been doctored.
at least then it won't come off as a bad photoshop job being passed off as something that really happened...
after thinking about it, considering how much money they already waste, it seems to me the best solutions would be to
1) hire out a software project to create a "courtroom sketch" and or "wall street journal art" filter for photoshop.
2) use that filter whenever a photo has been doctored.
at least then it won't come off as a bad photoshop job being passed off as something that really happened...
That's a FINE example of lateral thinking, Skip! Thumbs up!
It's interesting that the comparison is based on two completely different exposures. Look at some of the poses of people in the "main" image. They are different. Obviously taken within a very short time, but different exposures. The added folks in the back row look like they were shot at a closer distance. They look a little off scale to me. Could just be the fact that they also look pasted in.
If this were a family portrait, who would care. But to pass this off as something that actually happened is, I think, ridiculous. If they didn't want to wait outside, why didn't they go inside to wait and re-pose when the rest showed up?
oh for heaven's sake -- what difference does it make?? So they were photoshopped in and weren't there for the actual shoot. How many group shots do you think have been done that way, and who cares if they were there or not? Should they be ashamed of the poor quality? yes. Does it matter that they were photoshopped in later and weren't there for the group shot? no -- who cares?
Can you imagine saying No to Nancy Pelosi? Can you imagine saying If all the people you want in this shot aren't here when I'm ready, then I'm not taking the shot? Hm? You'd never work in Washington again. Plus I have no problem with what happened. All the people couldn't be there at the same time. They photoshopped the others in. The purpose was a record of all the faces of the congresswomen in one photo. Not documented proof that they were all standing on those steps together at the same time.
oh for heaven's sake -- what difference does it make?? So they were photoshopped in and weren't there for the actual shoot. How many group shots do you think have been done that way, and who cares if they were there or not? Should they be ashamed of the poor quality? yes. Does it matter that they were photoshopped in later and weren't there for the group shot? no -- who cares?
Because this type of photo should conform to PJ standards, for which this would *certainly* not be acceptable. Photographers have had their careers derailed for this type of thing in more traditional PJ situations. The photo purports to show an "historic" gathering of people that actually never took place.
Here's the link to fourandsix, the watchdog site that exposes tampering. It's worth a look, there's some very interesting stuff there. Richard's examples source from there, but there's a whole lot more, including current images.
Photo tampering has been a part of photography from the beginning, and yet we are still here.
Yes, it's true. This is not an epic disaster. But it doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to it.
Per your previous post, it's true that the photog was in a bad position. If I were in that spot (fat chance of that, LOL) I would explain to Ms. Pelosi the risk of doing what she asked, and perhaps suggest an alternative. If she persisted, I would do the shoot and provide the source images. I would decline to do the actual editing.
Photo tampering has been a part of photography from the beginning, and yet we are still here.
Yes, it's true. This is not an epic disaster. But it doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to it.
Per your previous post, it's true that the photog was in a bad position. If I were in that spot (fat chance of that, LOL) I would explain to Ms. Pelosi the risk of doing what she asked, and perhaps suggest an alternative. If she persisted, I would do the shoot and provide the source images. I would decline to do the actual editing.
Well, perhaps that's what happened. A second photog took the second shot. Someone else altogether did the editing. Someone who wasn't very good at it.
Photo tampering has been a part of photography from the beginning, and yet we are still here.
Yes, it's true. This is not an epic disaster. But it doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to it.
Per your previous post, it's true that the photog was in a bad position. If I were in that spot (fat chance of that, LOL) I would explain to Ms. Pelosi the risk of doing what she asked, and perhaps suggest an alternative. If she persisted, I would do the shoot and provide the source images. I would decline to do the actual editing.
Well, perhaps that's what happened. A second photog took the second shot. Someone else altogether did the editing. Someone who wasn't very good at it.
DITTO!
this is a prime example of some *idiot* in charge directing an under-qualified underling "to handle it". i'll bet, though, if it was posted on fb, it'd get a 1000 likes and comments proclaiming it to be a great shot ;-)
my only beef with the photographer is the perspective. why he/she wouldn't have been on a ladder or step-stool is ridiculous.
If the caption is Democratic Congresswomen of the 113th Congress it's no big deal.
If the Caption is Democratic Congresswomen of the 113th Congress Gather on Capitol Steps After Swearing-in Ceremony then it would seem to violate PJ guidelines, though I think the standards have some slack when it is a scheduled event like this as opposed to an "action" shot ... it's a portrait, not coverage of a news event.
Originally posted by Linked CNN article:
Pelosi said the photo "was an accurate reflection of who the 61 members - the Democratic women members of Congress are."
Nancy Pelosi's photog could've done a better job with this: Samsung Galaxy Note II commercial. The TV ad highlights the "best shot" feature of this camera phone, which allows users to save individual shots of a group, then combine them into one photo at the end.
I'm joking, but srsly it looks like any teenager with this camera phone could be a contender. At least on FB.
Well when Godzilla is elected to Congress, then things are very out of whack. For one thing, how do you get a group shot when Godzilla is so much taller than everyone else? There isn't a tall enough ladder to handle that.
