When a picture seems too good to be true
Posted: April 18th, 2010 | Author: wade | Filed under: Back stories, Ethics | 44 Comments »
Like a lot of things in life ethical journalism only gets public attention for its absence. The high standards of the majority of practitioners would possibly shock a lot of people because — again — like a lot of things in life more of the bad gets reported than the good, and this tends to overstate the existence of the problem.
When Reuters moved pictures on Friday of volcanic ash from the Eyjafjallajokull glacier in Iceland and the consequent disruptions to air travellers that this caused world-wide, one picture stood out from all of the others — so much so it was the clear choice for our coverage in the Herald. Well, we wanted it to be but something about it didn’t seem quite right.
It was a powerful picture for sure, showing billowing volcanic plumes pushing high above an agricultural setting of green fields and farm houses, contrasted against a big blue sky. A remarkable picture certainly — but we began to wonder if perhaps it was a little too remarkable.
Compounding our concern was the fact that none of the other pictures accompanying it on the wire feed rivalled it for shear power and punch, so we decided that some due diligence was in order and put out a call to the Reuters Singapore office to see if they could instil us with some confidence.
It seemed we weren’t the first of the disbelievers as Reuters had by that stage already initiated action to have the picture checked. Call back in two hours they told me.
So by 6pm we were left with a dilemma – to take this amazing picture at face value and accept its veracity until proven otherwise, or to have confidence in our hunch and play it safe. We chose to replace the picture with an inferior one at least for the first edition of Saturday’s paper and wait for Reuters’ response and then to reassess.
Two hours later I spoke to Singapore again. Reuters had made contact with the photographer, an Icelandic local, and sought access to the original. It transpired that before being acquired by the wire service, the photograph had been in the possession of an Icelandic newspaper and it was there that some fairly liberal digital dodging and burning took place. When a comparison was made with the original, it became obvious that post production had been applied to sufficient extent that it violated Reuters’ very firm position on digital enhancement. So they retracted the picture and supplied the original in its place, and we dropped that image into the Herald for later editions.
In fairness, photographers know that adjustments to smoke or clouds are a hard thing to get right when your aim is to have them reproduce in the newspaper with a similar impact upon readers that they had upon you when you stood there. This is because digital cameras often under represent the contrast in clouds and smoke and without a little work in Photoshop no printing press would be able to render a printed picture close to the reality of such a scene. So prepress people apply a degree of contrast in the production process knowing that some will be lost in the printing, with an aim to strike the right balance. And sometimes it’s just that through poor judgement, photographers over cook their pictures in order to increase the drama.
So the question becomes how much is too much, and without being there to see it themselves, and without the benefit of having both images in front of them to compare as we do now, it would have been difficult for Reuters to pick. On this occasion it was just the case that a bit of due diligence determined that what seemed too good to be true indeed was.
The difference a little post-production can make. A plume of volcanic ash rises into the atmosphere from a crater under the ice at the Eyjafjallajokull glacier in southern Iceland on April 14, 2010. Photo by Reuters
Adams by the way loved his computer (for word processing) and I’m pretty sure he would have been right into Photoshop.
I think where you draw the line will always be difficult to decide. In the old days, if the picture had been in black and white and on film, would the SMH have rejected a picture shot with a red filter?
For art purposes…. it’s great “darkroom” work!
One more reason to suspect citizen journalists? Or was the processing done on the Reuters photo desk?
Looks like a good bit of vivance and clarity was used.
Jay, I think you’re saying that Adams worked his images hard. I understand he used filters to darken skies, the Zone System to control tonal scale and range, and lots of dodge/burn when printing.
This image actually has a “Adams in color” feel to it.
The reason Reuters is always getting caught with it’s pants down is because getting caught withe their pants up never makes the headlines.
As the story says, it wasn’t the photographer who overdid the toning, it wasn’t Reuters, it was an intermediate newspaper.
Reuters then began their own internal checks, found a problem and took down the offending pic and replaced it with a correct version. Perhaps they should have noticed the problem when it was supplied to them, but apart from that I don’t see what you’re complaining about.
Why should things be so precious? Are you suggesting everything should be shot with an 18% grey card test?
Didn’t you ever print on high contrast paper in the old days? Use a red filter to make sky darker when using Fuji Neopan or HP5?
You will be moaning that drums have extra reverb on most rock tracks post production next.
Its not an OTT image. It not like the clouds were cloned in or a dead man was copied and pasted into the image.
“I don’t see what you’re complaining about.”
With qualified editors you do not get stuff like that through the wire.
It seems Reuters gets the lion’s share of these “pants down moments.” Time to get their act together on this department. That is how you loose clients. That is the heart of my complaint. As photo editor at my newspaper it would make me think twice when looking at kick ass reuters photos. Is it too good to be true? Have these guys checked the source? Could sombody slipped another false image through their editing system? Those questions come to mind and make me wonder why is Reuters still has not resolved this issue.
Include a gray card and color chips in every shot you ever take then…
This image looks like it was done on HDR software.
Reuters statement makes sense regarding the print party redoing the photograph.
The question remains: is there a difference between a physical filter, and a digital filter?
Artists say no, I agree.
News agency’s and photo competitions say yes, I think times are changing.
Here are some more prominent digital touch ups – including Time and National Geographics – both of which I disagree with-
http://www.10000words.net/2009/05/10-news-photos-that-took-photoshop-too/
Dave
Rules
No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image. (thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image)
No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image. (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image)
No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image)
http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php/A_Brief_Guide_to_Standards,_Photoshop_and_Captions
So let’s get this straight, most of us adjust and control our final images, some heavily so, but that’s not the point. The point is that some do it cleverly, and others fail miserably.
To end, IF a newspaper, agency or competition states that there should be NO adjustment, then this example clearly shows that someone didn’t follow rules, regardless of art, professionalism, or subtlety, period.
Having spent 2o years in photojournalism and now as an instructor, the Photoshop work I did would be acceptable at any newspaper, magazine or wire service I have ever worked for.
Many of you are quick to slam Reuters but stop for a minute and think about it. Sensors are, in many ways, the same as film. They cannot record what our eye sees. Our eye is way too complex. When we look at a scene such as the volcano our eye makes constant adjustments to adjust for areas of bright light and shadow. The camera must average out that scene.
I am willing to bet that what the eye saw of that scene was closer to the “enhanced” image than the original.
Besides your assuming that digital images are accurate representations of reality. They often are now. They don’t have they same dynamic range as the human eye, nor the same depth of field. Wide or long lenses don’t provide the same perspective. Auto white balance doesn’t always get it right. Skintones for instance tend to be red because of the design of camera sensors. I agree this image was over processed, but I think policy your proposing is over compensating. Many images could use a little work to make them both more accurate and more compelling, in ways which are remain faithful to the spirit of the subject. I dont think pure objectivity is possible or really desirable. The act of composing an image in a viewfinder is selective: you subjectively choose to include somethings and exclude others.
In the context of NEWS, image optimization (dependent on image output and display) should be the rule, not image enhancement. While the line between optimization and enhancement is arguably fuzzy, I still think there is a discernable line, and it was clearly crossed in this case.
Look, of course every photograph is ultimately an interpretation of what the photographer actually saw. I don’t think we should tell a photographer what lenses, or what shutter speeds, or what f-stops to use any more than we should tell a writer what words to use, how to construct his/her sentences, or what quotes to include or leave out.
Again, in the context of news, communication is the most important goal. However, accuracy is absolutely elemental.
After making any changes to an original image, one must ask if it is still an accurate and honest representation of what the photographer actually witnessed. It’s a standard that must be guarded and applied to any information, visual or otherwise, passed on to the public by professional journalists. And that’s a challenge in today’s widely unfiltered environment.
Without accuracy in news reporting, there is just no credibility.
- Any individual human eye?
- The equipment of any given digital camera?
The individual human eye might have seen the event as represented to the right (after darkroom), whereas the the camera “saw” the event as represented to the left (original). Thus some basic darkroom work must be allowed and accepted, like; sharpening, highlighting, contrast improvement, even removal of disturbing object (within limits).
/Simson93