Altered Images In New York Times Mag

bdcolen · July 9, 2009

Some of you may remember a brief exchange a while back about photo journalism standards, and my saying that standards regarding alteration of images had become more strict, rather than more lenient in recent years. Well, this just in from Photo District News - and worth following...

"New York Times Magazine Withdraws Altered Photo Essay

"UPDATE, 5:57 p.m. ET: The New York Times has published a new editors' note about the altered photo essay that was published in Sunday's Times Magazine. The newspaper says "most of the images did not wholly reflect the reality they purported to show." The note does not address which photos were altered, or whether the photographer misrepresented them to the editors. PDN has tried to reach Edgar Martins, the photographer, but has not heard from him. Here's the Times' note:

"A picture essay in The Times Magazine on Sunday and an expanded slide show on NYTimes.com entitled 'Ruins of the Second Gilded Age' showed large housing construction projects across the United States that came to a halt, often half-finished, when the housing market collapsed. The introduction said that the photographer, a freelancer based in Bedford, England, 'creates his images with long exposures but without digital manipulation.'

"A reader, however, discovered on close examination that one of the pictures was digitally altered, apparently for aesthetic reasons. Editors later confronted the photographer and determined that most of the images did not wholly reflect the reality they purported to show. Had the editors known that the photographs had been digitally manipulated, they would not have published the picture essay, which has been removed from NYTimes.com."

Flyinggina · July 9, 2009

I guess this isn't surprising, but it distresses me just the same.

I alter photographs all the time for aesthetic reasons and have no qualms about doing it.

But I am not passing the results off as "objective reality" only "my reality" and sometimes "my fantasy." It is my form of artistic expression.

At the same time, I expect photographs by photojournalists published in main line newspapers and magazines to be unaltered. It was wrong of the photographer to submit altered pictures but it was also wrong of the New York Times not to ask for a confirmation that the photographs had not been digitally altered. And is was wrong of the editorial staff not to do an independent evaluation. It is similar to fact checking. Publishers fail to do it at their peril.

At least the Times pulled the photographs when they found out.

A sad story all around.

Va

Richard · July 9, 2009

It´s an interesting issue. Manipulation has become so ridiculously easy with the advent of digital editing that responsible publications have to take a hard line. Still, as most of us here realize, just the act of framing a pic is an editorial decision. What goes in and what is excluded can shape the story. Is the candidate for office smiling with confidence or looking nervous? Photo editors make choices all the time that affect the reality that is presented.

bdcolen · July 9, 2009

Richard wrote:

It´s an interesting issue. Manipulation has become so ridiculously easy with the advent of digital editing that responsible publications have to take a hard line. Still, as most of us here realize, just the act of framing a pic is an editorial decision. What goes in and what is excluded can shape the story. Is the candidate for office smiling with confidence or looking nervous? Photo editors make choices all the time that affect the reality that is presented.

The difference between making editorial decisions - chosing which slice of 'reality' to use, and constructing an image, are two radically different things. You're right, Richard, that editors, photographers, and reporters make editorial decisions all the time, and in that way they construct the reader/viewer's concept of reality. And you're also right about how effortless manipulation has become. And because of that holding the line has become all the more important.

Nikolai · July 9, 2009

It's a no-win battle. One can effectively "lie" by simply pointing the camera in a different direction and showing just one "needed" face out of hundreds "not-needed" ones, yet the same one can take a true-to-heart shot yet later clone out, say, a piece of garbage that stuck into the frame, which does not modify the story at all and could be easily removed IRL, but wasn't for whatever reason and now simply distracts from the primary target of the picture. Shold the first be praised as a true PJ and the second harrassed as a "fabricator"? I honestly don't think so...

Just in case: I'm not talking about adding extra smoke clouds or missiles... That's bad - if done poorly, at least...

dogwood · July 10, 2009

Flyinggina wrote:

It is similar to fact checking. Publishers fail to do it at their peril.

Well, I'm not exactly sure the lack of fact checking or altered photos are resulting in the decline of the print publishing industry.

It probably has to do with the internet.

Get used to it. No joke. Mainstream journalism is almost dead. Blogs, "citizen journalists" with cameras, twitter, facebook, all that-- it's the future. Where is news from Iran coming from?

Oh-- you're a NPR listener? Didn't they just lay off 70 people (including reporters) this year and furlough dozens of reporters over the summer? Most of the local NPR public radio stations also went through layoffs. National network news is experiencing a decline in viewers. Slow auto dealerships mean less advertising for local t.v. stations meaning less money for t.v. news.

I know this sounds cynical, but this is the future of news. It's a competitive industry with fewer and fewer opportunities. Reporters are expected more and more to shoot their own photos and shoot their own video for use on the web. That wasn't the case in the NYT incident, but it's going to be more of an issue in the future. All that pressure is bound to lead to more and more altering of reality.

RBrogen · July 10, 2009

Post processing shots for just about any occassion, in my opinion is fine and in most cases needed. HOWEVER, as soon as you put the title of "photojournalist" on and submit an image, it MUST meet a higher level of reality check given the nature of the position. These images, by definition are to reflect the relality that is being documented. If the piece of trash was on the ground or floating in the air when the shot was taken then it should stay becuase in that instant, that was the reality. It's not a fashion shot, but one that is presenting a freeze frame window portal to that moment and should not be altered in any way, shape form or fashion. Without staying true to the fundamental purpose of the shot, it is merely just another photograph. Unfortunately, as with all other industries, photography is not immune to unscrupulous types who minipulate for their gain.

mercphoto · July 10, 2009

Nikolai wrote:

It's a no-win battle. One can effectively "lie" by simply pointing the camera in a different direction and showing just one "needed" face out of hundreds "not-needed" ones, yet the same one can take a true-to-heart shot yet later clone out, say, a piece of garbage that stuck into the frame, which does not modify the story at all and could be easily removed IRL, but wasn't for whatever reason and now simply distracts from the primary target of the picture. Shold the first be praised as a true PJ and the second harrassed as a "fabricator"? I honestly don't think so...

Just in case: I'm not talking about adding extra smoke clouds or missiles... That's bad - if done poorly, at least...

I brought up points like that while I was a SportsShooter member years ago (an organization primarily of photojournalists) and they just didn't get it. They didn't even want an image cropped, even though all photos are inherintly cropped when you snap the shutter button in the first place. I think its just a convenient line in the sand that what you do in-camera is ok, but afterwards is not. And while that seems silly and arbirtrary to some degree, it is a clear-cut line in the sand. And that's worth something.

But this is what scares me most about "citizen journalism" and "iReporters". They have no jouranlistic ethical training. Don't get me wrong, I have a relatively low opinion of the press in America to begin with. But I have a lower opinion of citizen journalism.

RBrogen · July 10, 2009

Bill,

I tend to agree completely with you, especially about citizen journalism and iReporters. Basically what you have is the networks playing on people's drive for their 15 minutes of fame and that they can get these reports almost every time for free. This by its very nature undermines the integrity of the situation because the network is going to want to use the info because it's free and the iReporter will typically not have any journalistic background at all and sometimes not be aware that modding a shot affects it's journalistic properties. It's a slippery slope that we are on, and I use the analogy of going up that first big incline on a rollercoaster, can you here the "click, click, click" as the chain pulls you closer to the apex of no return? lol

Nikolai · July 10, 2009

mercphoto wrote:

I brought up points like that while I was a SportsShooter member years ago (an organization primarily of photojournalists) and they just didn't get it. They didn't even want an image cropped, even though all photos are inherintly cropped when you snap the shutter button in the first place. I think its just a convenient line in the sand that what you do in-camera is ok, but afterwards is not. And while that seems silly and arbirtrary to some degree, it is a clear-cut line in the sand. And that's worth something.

But this is what scares me most about "citizen journalism" and "iReporters". They have no jouranlistic ethical training. Don't get me wrong, I have a relatively low opinion of the press in America to begin with. But I have a lower opinion of citizen journalism.

Bill, I understand about "a line in a sand". And it made total sense in film era. However, nowadays when cameras's processors are arguably more powerful than mainframe computers were only 20 years ago and in-camera effects are rivalring PS ones, this line becomes shallower and wider by the minute. It's still visible for now, but it's doomed to disappear within a decade methinks.

torags · July 10, 2009

Interesting....

So what is an alteration? Is fill light or sharpening altering the reality of the image?

A mention should be made that at the newspaper printing level, screening used to be done and film processors were able to alter what the camera saw and cropping was normal to fit on a page.

That said, I agree with the Times position but also see it as short term. Images and online journalism is something I trust less each day.

It seems to me a big reason the newspapers were interested in accurate reporting because of lawsuit liability. That would be a compliment to a group that rarely gets credit for anything, trial attorneys. Online dispersed journalism is too small and elusive a target for that type of deterrent.

Another usually unrecognized newspaper practice is printing stories from public relations firms that are not news and self serving. I mean it's as bad as congress who have lobbyists write the bills for congress to vote on.

I laugh at some of the file pictures of movie stars that are 10 years old and don't look like the person does today (so where's the news integrity there)

A very complicated issue...

thoth · July 10, 2009

The only way to keep the public on your side when confronted with an issue such as this is through full disclosure. Unfortunately, full disclosure after the fact typically just looks like backpedaling.

A smart publisher would make all original submissions (those printed anyway) available for public viewing. Invite your readers to help prevent image manipulation and a very large part of your liability gets lifted from your shoulders. Sure, you're still ultimately responsible but your readers will sympathize, rather than blame, as they missed it too.

dogwood · July 11, 2009

thoth wrote:

The only way to keep the public on your side when confronted with an issue such as this is through full disclosure.

Too late. The public has already said newspapers are dead. Or at least they're not buying or subscribing to them like they used to and ad revenues are way down. And it had nothing to do with lack of full disclosure. I LOVE newspapers but I have to say again-- altering photos has nothing to do with the demise of newspapers.

thoth · July 11, 2009

dogwood wrote:

I LOVE newspapers but I have to say again-- altering photos has nothing to do with the demise of newspapers.

Who said it did? I don't see any comments in the thread about the life of the newspaper industry outside of your own.

To clarify, "keep the public on your side" does not mean "keep the public buying newspapers." It means that, as a print or web publisher, you want your readers to believe that you have not willingly printed falsified photographs.

bdcolen · July 11, 2009

torags wrote:

Interesting....

So what is an alteration? Is fill light or sharpening altering the reality of the image?

A mention should be made that at the newspaper printing level, screening used to be done and film processors were able to alter what the camera saw and cropping was normal to fit on a page.

That said, I agree with the Times position but also see it as short term. Images and online journalism is something I trust less each day.

It seems to me a big reason the newspapers were interested in accurate reporting because of lawsuit liability. That would be a compliment to a group that rarely gets credit for anything, trial attorneys. Online dispersed journalism is too small and elusive a target for that type of deterrent.

Another usually unrecognized newspaper practice is printing stories from public relations firms that are not news and self serving. I mean it's as bad as congress who have lobbyists write the bills for congress to vote on.

I laugh at some of the file pictures of movie stars that are 10 years old and don't look like the person does today (so where's the news integrity there)

A very complicated issue...

Speaking as someone who was a reporter for 26 years for two major U.S. papers, and someone who teaches news and feature writing, I have to say you're wrong on several counts..

1. Newspapers did not strive for accuracy because of fear of trial lawyers; they strove for accuracy because that was their mission. Yes, many failed in that mission; many have always failed in that mission. But rather than live in fear of trial lawyers, most major U.S. papers - NYTimes, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer - in its hayday in the 1970s and early 80s - etc., printed what they believed to be the 'truth' about a given situation, and left it to their own attorneys to deal with anyone threatening to sue.

2. NOW the threat of legal action IS having an enormous impact on the future of journalism. The problem is that most bloggers, small on-line publications, and freelancers are operating without the protection of major news organizations with their in house attorneys and outside firms on retainer. The independents know they can be wiped out defending themselves against litigious story subjects, and therefore are far, far less likely to do serious reporting and particularly less likely to do risky investigative journalism.

3. There is nothing per se less accurate about newspapers on line. What many people seem to miss is that the issue facing American journalism isn't the form in which the news is delivered (I'm an old dead tree and ink guy but I won't mourn the end of dead tree editions of newspapers), but rather the size of the staffs, and budgets, gathering the news. As newspaper ad revenue shrinks, and staffs shrink with it, there are fewer and fewer reporters to cover the news and they are trying to cover it with ever shrinking resources.

I realize there are many people who hate the media, and can't wait for the last newspaper to die. All I can say to them is just wait until you don't have journalists around poking sticks in the eyes of our elected officials - and see how you like what happens to the country then. I live in the Boston area, and could criticize the Boston Globe all day long. But given the blatant corruption and incompetence in our state government, I shudder to think about what things will be like when the Globe finally goes belly up.

MLangton · July 12, 2009

bdcolen wrote:

I shudder to think about what things will be like when the Globe finally goes belly up.

I think the same could be said about most papers in Anytown USA. While they barely hold a candle to what they once did, IMHO they are still much more reliable of a source than the TV news. I'll take my local paper over the TV, anytime.

Back on thread, being a noob to the digital SLR age after many years of film... I am left scratching my head about PP. I agree that it is necessary on many instances, I am left wondering where to draw that line many speak about.

Take a model on a young men's magazine cover for example. The shot is usually so PP'd that the model appears to be a CGI, and not even a real person anymore. WTF???

crockett · July 13, 2009

I was just reading an article about some prestegious photo journalism contest that is held in France. The winners ended up being a couple young students who did a story on what young kids had to endure to get an education. When it came time to receive their award, they explained to everyone that all of the photos were staged. They explained that photojournalism had become so predictable and routine in the images that were used to evoke emotion that they were fed up....

I guess they were right.

We're entering a very interesting faze of journalism / news and I personally believe things are going to get a lot worse before some severe corrections will eventually be made.

mpaulie · July 13, 2009

Here is a link detailing all the alterations in the photo essay if anyone has not seen it yet...

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/07/new-york-times-magazine-withdraws-possibly-altered-photo-essay.html

bdcolen · July 13, 2009

MLangton wrote:

I think the same could be said about most papers in Anytown USA. While they barely hold a candle to what they once did, IMHO they are still much more reliable of a source than the TV news. I'll take my local paper over the TV, anytime.

Back on thread, being a noob to the digital SLR age after many years of film... I am left scratching my head about PP. I agree that it is necessary on many instances, I am left wondering where to draw that line many speak about.

Take a model on a young men's magazine cover for example. The shot is usually so PP'd that the model appears to be a CGI, and not even a real person anymore. WTF???

But that isn't journalism and makes no pretense of being journalism - who cares what they do with the image?

MLangton · July 13, 2009

bdcolen wrote:

But that isn't journalism and makes no pretense of being journalism - who cares what they do with the image?

You are correct. I fell for the thread drift. Sorry.

torags · July 13, 2009

Quote: <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by MLangton
I think the same could be said about most papers in Anytown USA. While they barely hold a candle to what they once did, IMHO they are still much more reliable of a source than the TV news. I'll take my local paper over the TV, anytime.

Back on thread, being a noob to the digital SLR age after many years of film... I am left scratching my head about PP. I agree that it is necessary on many instances, I am left wondering where to draw that line many speak about.

Take a model on a young men's magazine cover for example. The shot is usually so PP'd that the model appears to be a CGI, and not even a real person anymore. WTF???
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

But that isn't journalism and makes no pretense of being journalism - who cares what they do with the image?
  __________________
B. D.

Wait a minute. Didn't you originally post an article on photo alteration in the Times??

If you're trying to confuse me; it's working!!!!

aaronbrown · August 15, 2009

I'm curious to know what everyone here thinks of HDR use in photo journalism.

Richard · August 15, 2009

aaronbrown wrote:

I'm curious to know what everyone here thinks of HDR use in photo journalism.

Not being a photo editor, I don't really know what the rules are about making global changes to contrast, saturation and the like. I would think that over-the-top color "enhancements" should not be permitted, as they do not convey reality at all. OTOH, I see nothing wrong with using HDR to give a boost to dynamic range.

bdcolen · August 15, 2009

Richard wrote:

Not being a photo editor, I don't really know what the rules are about making global changes to contrast, saturation and the like. I would think that over-the-top color "enhancements" should not be permitted, as they do not convey reality at all. OTOH, I see nothing wrong with using HDR to give a boost to dynamic range.

I know I'd have a problem with it, as it requires passing off several images as one. I think it's fine to use if labeled "photo illustration," because that's what it is. But an image produced with HDR is not A photograph.

Richard · August 15, 2009

bdcolen wrote:

I know I'd have a problem with it, as it requires passing off several images as one. I think it's fine to use if labeled "photo illustration," because that's what it is. But an image produced with HDR is not A photograph.

That seems like an artificial distinction. The components of an HDR composite differ only in exposure. If they do not capture exactly the same scene, the HDR will be blurry or may not be created at all. It really doesn't seem enitrely different from using a graduated neutral density filter. I wouldn't be surprised to see a camera in the not too distant future that can produce an HDR composite automatically. So would that camera produce images but not photographs?

Altered Images In New York Times Mag

Comments