FireStats is not installed in the database
 
header image
 

Doctored photo costs photog a newsroom job

The Charlotte Observer sacked a staff photographer for altering a spot news image a few days back when all he’d tried to do was return the colour back to the sky. Although this wasn’t his first run-in with altering photos, the ethics of which was discussed by Pedro Meyer in his 2003 article In defense of photographer Patrick Schneider and the fictions of a "Code of Ethics"

"Schneider said he did not intend to mislead readers, only to restore the actual color of the sky. He said the color was lost when he underexposed the photo to offset the glare of the sun."

What do you think? When is the ethical line crossed?

Related Links

~ by John Mackay on July 30, 2006.

2 Responses to “Doctored photo costs photog a newsroom job”

  1. As I understand it, the famous photo of Robert Kennedy on the floor dying originally showed…nothing.
    It was only after pushing the negative a number of stops to bring out the image that an award winning photo appeared.
    When I shot TV newsfilm I sometimes forgot to put on the correct filter when I shot daylight film indoors…and got blue images. The engineers would correct that in the film chain.
    Would either of these instances violate the above policy?

  2. Thanks for your comments Art. I never knew that about the Bobby Kennedy photo although on reflection I recall it was on the contrasty side of things but that just added to the impact of the photo.

    And yes I have done the Tungsten thing more than once myself :0

    And I agree that the camera often does not capture the scene as the mind’s eye recalls it and I admit that I’m rather more concerned about editorialising the news than I am with a PJ’s attempt to add impact to what is essentially a non-news ‘hero shot’ of a fireman on a ladder.

    Pehaps, in light of his revious infractions they felt they needed to appear to be making an example–politics of journalist integrity and all that :)

Leave a Reply