Perhaps they are just bugs flying by near the camera... (or pigs!)
Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a bit funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that, and not that it really matters in the context.
(O:
Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit of image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a very slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes, then...
It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing safeguards - I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.
Mark Thomas wrote: > Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit of > image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a very > slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes, then...
> It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing safeguards - > I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.
Starts with removing dust, ends up making the picture `better` via the clone tool:
Poldie wrote: > Mark Thomas wrote: >> Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit >> of image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a >> very slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes, >> then...
>> It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing safeguards >> - I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.
> Starts with removing dust, ends up making the picture `better` via the > clone tool:
Yes, that example sprang to mind as I was typing my reply.. When I first saw that image, I was simply dumbstruck. It looks like what happens the very first time someone encounters Photoshop and the clone tool - "ooh, look at what *that* does!".
It just defies belief that someone could even be bothered to save that image, let alone submit it (accidentally or otherwise) for publication so it would actually be seen by anyone else.., let alone that any editor, even if blind drunk, would let it get through.
[] > Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that > image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a > bit funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that, > and not that it really matters in the context.
They must have changed the index - I see no firefighters.....
> [] >> Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that >> image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a >> bit funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that, >> and not that it really matters in the context.
> They must have changed the index - I see no firefighters.....
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote: : Alan Browne wrote:
: > : > : > http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsurfire-pg,0,2458282.photo... : > : > : > : : Perhaps they are just bugs flying by near the camera... (or pigs!) : : Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that : image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a bit : funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that, and not : that it really matters in the context.
I think the foreground figures are simply out of focus. These pictures aren't so hot (pun not intended, but recognized), and the one Alan selected may be the worst of the bunch. But the photographer(s) were in a danger area and obviously in a hurry, so I'd cut them some slack. The amateurs at the Minnesota bridge collapse a few months ago did a better job, but they had neither danger nor time constraints to contend with.
>> [] >>> Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that >>> image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a >>> bit funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that, >>> and not that it really matters in the context.
>> They must have changed the index - I see no firefighters.....
Mark Thomas wrote: > Poldie wrote: >> Mark Thomas wrote: >>> Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit >>> of image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a >>> very slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes, >>> then...
>>> It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing >>> safeguards - I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.
>> Starts with removing dust, ends up making the picture `better` via the >> clone tool:
> Yes, that example sprang to mind as I was typing my reply.. When I > first saw that image, I was simply dumbstruck. It looks like what > happens the very first time someone encounters Photoshop and the clone > tool - "ooh, look at what *that* does!".
> It just defies belief that someone could even be bothered to save that > image, let alone submit it (accidentally or otherwise) for publication > so it would actually be seen by anyone else.., let alone that any > editor, even if blind drunk, would let it get through.
That is also puzzling me. It is as though someone has made a clumsy attempt to discredit the photographer.
I am new here, most people would not know me or have seen any of my profile pages, but as a journalist of thirty plus years standing, I do not know of any photographer with sufficient credibility to be published who isn't extremely well experienced in photo manipulation. There is definitely something untoward about that image. I am not a photojournalist by the way, I use a photographer if I know beforehand that I will need one, but have always carried a camera "just in case". There have been a lot of "just in case" occasions over the years. Until recently it has been a Nikon SLR, with a couple of primes and a 28-200 fitted. Plus an MD-12.
I started with an FT and for the last couple of decades it has been a less than top of the line FE. It has never let me down so I never upgraded it. I have recently made the switch to digital and am not really happy so far, to the extent where I am still trying various cameras hoping to find something with which I feel more confident. I have just purchased a Lumix DMC-FZ50 after seeing the results that one of my daughters has been achieving. It is a very versatile camera, fast to get into action, amazing lens for such a low cost camera, and the image stabilisation is remarkable. I prefer it to either the Rebel or the Olympus E500 that I have been using to date. But then my requirements are probably very different to many amateur or professional photographers. I am not looking for a beautiful shot, just a clearly defined graphical illustration. I often need to get a clean shot very quickly, often without knowing beforehand what focal length to expect. You don't know if they are going to come out of that door a metre away, or the one at the other end of the block. That sort of thing.
The Panasonic has its limitations, as do all digitals, particularly small sensor digitals so I still carry the Nikon for those occasions when something faster is required.
I am well versed in Photoshop, right from Adobe's very early days. For years I would shoot film and then scan (drum scanner) it into a digital image for final processing. I am not alone in that, while everyone did in the early days, now that DSLRs have made such advances it is mostly just us old dinosaurs who are still doing it. My favourite photographer also still uses a mix of film and digital on assignments. But then he is around my age and we have worked together for decades.
This is just a little bit of introduction as I think that I might stay with some of these groups for a while, but back to the thread, my other concern is that not only a supposedly experienced photographer produced such a pathetic image, but that it passed all editing and proofreading, that it was actually published. That is amazing. There has to be more to the story.
> Perhaps they are just bugs flying by near the camera... (or pigs!)
> Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that > image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a bit > funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that, and not > that it really matters in the context.
> (O:
> Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit of > image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a very > slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes, then...
> It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing safeguards - > I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.
Every major paper and news service has a standard published and you can find them online if you dig around. For anything newsworthy manipulation is verbotten and there have been cases of PJ's fired for it (as discussed rpe35mm some time ago). OTOH, digitally removing spots would be allowed.
