Exactly, and this is the key. It is meant to be detected as a fake to damage reuters reputation in reporting on Israels war on Lebanon. Most reporting has been unfavourable to Israel and the fake photo has since been used to question all the reporting. This is how intelligence agencies work and even if the photographer was fired, it is only an assumption that the fake was done by him/her.

But regardless I thought I would include my two cents worth here.

The photographer was fired for showing bias in his photographs – a bias that was unfounded and simply wrong. It is pretty simple.

The guy wanted to make Israel look baaaaaaad, evil, and what they were doing to seem like a horrendous crime. Rather than the accurate portrayal of a nation trying to stymie an enemy that hides behind women and children for cover.

I doubt you will post this – a form of your own bias (and it is your own site).

ciao.

George

But in this case, this is photojournalism. Not advertising. Not fine art photography. Photojournalism ascribes to a set of standards, one of which is that you can’t add details that weren’t there.

You mentioned the OJ picture on the cover of Time and Newsweek. One is doctored and it definitely paints OJ to look more sinister. As designers I don’t think we can just say that it’s “just” cloning and adjusting the contrast. If used correctly, those simple tools can change the message a photograph is sending.

And if these little touches truly didn’t matter, why did the photographer add them in the first place? I think he knows that adding smoke and contrast makes the photo more dramatic. Perhaps painting the Lebanese people as more sympathetic and/or the Israelis as more sinister.

Then, there are a contingent of skeptics and naysayers that are quick to point out if something is “faked” or not. These people strive to be the quintessential source for what is “real” and what isn’t, among their peers. To a lesser extent, most designers that I know, people familiar with compisiting images and such, like to point these things out simply because they notice them.

Keeping these two contingents in mind (and no, not everyone falls into one or the other), and taking into account that EVERY PHOTOGRAPH EVER TAKEN has a perspective, a slant, to it; now ask yourself what good a “line” of acceptability would do? And yes, I’d prefer the answer in feet of digitally altered smoke.

This guy got fired because he’s a hack at Photoshop. Let’s not kid ourselves. Had he altered the photo in a way that it wasn’t BLATANTLY obvious, he’d still have a job.

Is photoshopping an image to better suit your needs ethical? Probably not. Is using a fill flash and low exposure to darken the sky, in order to convey a prevailing sense of doom ethical? Again, probably not. However, several of the posts here seem to imply that it is. A camera is simply another tool of an artist. Painting detailed strokes or broad strokes, every image is a creation. A camera isn’t a magical truth-box.

That is true, but that doesn’t mean that the inverse is true, that un “Photoshopped” photos are true. Unaltered photos can be propaganda, too. That is the heart of my post. Why is it so hard to understand that a good photographer isn’t creating truth, they are telling a story?

I am not opposed to standards and rules for ensuring the accuracyy of photography. Bennett raises a good question about retaining the digital signature of a file in order to prove that a photo is unaltered. The nature of digital is so open to forgery, that photographers who still use film would have an advantage if they ever had to “prove” that their images are legitmate. Being able to trust that a photo hasn’t been doctored is a valuable thing. That doesn’t really solve the problem of using photography in a manipulative manner, however. Even the most technically accurate photo can still be as misleading as the worst propaganda.

The problem with creating a formula for creating a photograph that is “true” is that it can’t be done. Regardless of who the person is, I can portray them as kind or evil depending on how I use photography. I could follow the guidelines and still end up with an editorial photo. A big example I see in the news is when they show their “stock” images of people. When the news wants to portray the guilt of someone, they show the ugliest photo they can find. They repeat the footage that has the most shock value. Is that fair? Would the opposite be fair; to show suspected criminals in a positive light, helping grandma cross the street or whatever? To use Su’s word, is one portrayal more accurate? No, they are both manipulative.

I am amazed by people that can so easily buy into journalism as an organization committed to telling the truth. I can appreciate the idealism of a journalist that goes into the profession with the goal of proclaiming the truth, but that doesn’t make me any less skeptical.

Also, I can think of nothing worse than a population that only gets its information from one source. Personally, I get my news from a combination of cable news, internet, and radio. None of those sources would I consider to be completely truthful. The benefit of having so many different news sources competing with each other is that they expose the bias and flaws of their competitors. Competition results in exposing sources that are false and it points out the agenda and motivation of their competitors. I can think of nothing more dangerous than just accepting one source at face value. Sure, that would be convenient, but it has major consequences. We are seeing the consequences right now. Our country has divided into violently polarized segments that can’t communicate with their opposition. Rather than listen to the points of their opposition, they are willing to mindlessly accept the flavor of truth that they have subscribed to and hate anything that goes against their belief. I think that is really the tragedy of the current news climate.

Although we all know that we have to be critical of everything we hear and see, no one has time to research into every single image shown in news-related magazines, newspapers & online articles to find out if it was real or doctored.

We also have to be realistic about the people living in society. The vast majority of people will blindly accept all news as long as it doesn’t disagree completely with their strongly-believed, truthiness-based reality of the world.

Any concerned person in the world should abhor such blatant alterations of reality. According to your post it would be OK if Fox News doctored some images to show that WMD were indeed found or NYT doctored images to distort the actual bombing of 7 innocent civilians to a exagurated 100 civilians dead.

We have to confront all blatant doctoring of truth in all forms wherever it pops its ugly head.

At its core, advertising is about lying beautifully (at best, it can be called grossly exaggerating the truth).
At its core, news is a presentation of facts (or, truth with or without context).

When you ‘photoshop’ the news, it ceases to be news anymore. It becomes propaganda.

…But I have a little MORE patience for stupidity like THAT.

I think you meant “equate”, not “equivocate”. In your statement, the act of comparing A with B is to EQUATE A with B. It then follows that the entire PROCESS of equating A with B would be to EQUIVOCATE.

Grammar and Usage Man to the rescue!

That aside, there are several problems with the blistering criticism I’m hearing. Yes, I’m defending Adrian because he’s right about the comparasions he’s drawing between advertising and journalism.

He’s right because advertising affects the populous just as much as journalism, and the two disciplines readily feed off of one another.

I’m thankful that Jason just came out and said what most of the naive critics of Adrian’s view all seem to be assuming.

“Journalism is supposed to be the 4th branch of government.”

HA HA! Wow. Well, this same hope makes up most of the reason why people are willing to submit to a government that decides to control all avenues of communication. When I read it in the history books, it was hard to understand why any group of people would just allow an authoritarian system to come in and control how we see things.

Now I understand.

Adrian is right in that journalism is no more sacred than advertising, and that the only difference is that journalism has to make out that it IS credible and objective, while advertising does not.

Now, in this light, Adrian is calling us to be honest and ethical in the messages we choose to present, because the media we present through are inherently mutable.

For my part, I took photojournalism classes and decided NOT to pursue a career in a profession that is in the business of continually faking difinitive authority. I’d rather work in advertising, where I am reminded on a daily basis that the images I create influence people’s perceptions in a profound way, and that I have a responsibility to be ethical AND entertaining or enticing.

Journalism seems to require that its practiciaoners constantly blind themselves to the fact that they are only presenting an interpretation, a point of view that they feel best describes the situation.

The Photoshop hack should’ve been fired. But the questions about where to draw the line are kind of irrelevant in terms of feet of visible smoke.

Seriously, you can turn day to night with a fill flash and a short exposure. You can augment the severity of a facial expression or a cast shadow simply by dialing down the exposure.

Here’s a great question for those of you who don’t understand how often in-camera or in-darkroom techniques can be used to alter “pure” images.

Why is Ansel Adams photography so beautiful?

Here’s another.

What makes a great photojournalist?

Because if you wanted a truly subjective photograph, you should hand a camera to a little child. Why don’t we just hand cameras to little kids when it’s time to capture an innocent, fair and relativey objective view of the world? Kids are great at capturing every little moment. It’s because they aren’t good at capturing what we WANT to see.

My verdict is similar to Adrian’s:

Photojournalists are experts in depicting exactly what they want you to see, just like advertisers are. They both have the requirement of selling their images to be displayed in the public eye.

The point of view, the camera, the choice of one photo over another, they all affect how an event, product, etc. is portrayed.

For example, have you, pro phtographer or otherwise, ever taken a “bad” photo? Not that the frame was blurry, or washed out, or too dark. But a photo where Grandma looked like an ogre? Or where Susie had a look on her face like she just tasted a bug?

Why don’t we use those photos in our holiday cards to family and friends? Aren’t they honest depictions of the event? Aren’t they honest depictions of how they looked?

Oh, that’s right. Because Grandma doesn’t USUALLY look like that. And we wanted Susie to be pretty for the photo. And we want everyone to think that our family is nice and sweet.

And we all want to believe that our enemies are at their most vicious, and that babies are at their most vulnerable, and heroes are at their strongest, and so on.

Choosing the right images to enforce those ideas is not a science. It is an art, for the journalist and the advertiser alike.

But I’m truly amased that a photographer with 10 years ( I think i read earlier ) of experience can sit and edit his photo, first of all so poorly, but then still go ahead and think – “yeah its good enough, I think I’ll submit it”.

As allready metioned, really those patterns in the clouds, and whats up with the contrast i really think it makes the photo worse.