| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/21/2015 09:17:01 PM · #1 |
But why? Though this story is almost 2 years old:
Link to the story |
|
|
|
11/21/2015 10:28:53 PM · #2 |
Everything is a witch-hunt these days...
*sigh* |
|
|
|
11/22/2015 01:22:30 AM · #3 |
Well rules are rules and site council would have disqualified him in the same way.
When it comes to news a basic edit should be just enough, over that line you might start to actually distort the news.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2015 01:24:31 AM · #4 |
| Anyway that superb photo would have finished on the last page here along with the other good pictures. |
|
|
|
11/22/2015 10:01:28 AM · #5 |
| In journalism, credibility will be lost if the practice of doctoring images is ignored. What appears to be an insignificant edit opens the door to more substantive changes. |
|
|
|
11/22/2015 11:13:35 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Well rules are rules and site council would have disqualified him in the same way.
|
We might not have, although certainly debated over it. To some SC, this might not count as a "significant" element, since it is barely visible in the original. |
|
|
|
11/22/2015 11:41:06 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by jagar:
Well rules are rules and site council would have disqualified him in the same way. |
We might not have, although certainly debated over it. To some SC, this might not count as a "significant" element, since it is barely visible in the original. |
Can't imagine us DQing the image for that particular camera, it's not significant in the composition in any way. Not that this has anything at all with AP's standards, which are perfectly reasonable for their corner of the photographic universe.
What strikes ME is that the presence of that other camera implies that the whole image may be staged, not "captured"... |
|
|
|
11/22/2015 11:53:10 AM · #8 |
When a trained eye captures an image its not so much about what is being photographed as how something looks photographed. Like any other medium, on their own, they can't accurately depict history. That being said, photographs are a valuable part of history and their validity should be scrutinized.
Message edited by author 2015-11-22 11:55:45. |
|
|
|
11/22/2015 12:05:20 PM · #9 |
| If for the sake of news you photograph a scene then start taking out whole objects and adding rocks and stones that weren't there, well it's a slippery slope that the truth probably won't survive. I actually think it's a fine photo even with the camera, unfortunately probably staged though. |
|
|
|
11/22/2015 12:20:51 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by jagar:
When it comes to news a basic edit should be just enough, over that line you might start to actually distort the news. |
SMILE |
|
|
|
11/22/2015 12:41:00 PM · #11 |
I don't know if many remember the photos of bombings in the middle east in 2006 and there was an altered photo of the bombing smoke. I did a domestic version of the California fires from 30,000 ft flying back home from San Diego.
Original: 
Journalistic edit:  |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 01:57:49 AM EDT.
