DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> this needs a good look and discussion...
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 68, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/30/2006 07:53:55 PM · #1
ny times image
08/30/2006 07:55:53 PM · #2
They work hard for us. If they want to see it, they deserve it!

Edit: Girl needs to eat a sack of potatoes though. :-)

Edit: D'oh... I guess I'm just getting too accustomed to debating... that editting job on that wire is terrible... unless it's a stiff whip!

Message edited by author 2006-08-30 20:33:15.
08/30/2006 07:56:39 PM · #3
Amen...but that shot could have gone a little further north on the main subject.
08/30/2006 07:56:58 PM · #4
Nice Plywood...
08/30/2006 07:57:13 PM · #5
that is SUCH a bad touchup job!
' . substr('//img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif', strrpos('//img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif', '/') + 1) . '

I can do a better job than that, and I suck at it!

ETA: and why in the heck did they remove it anyway? Is there a plague of poor-photo-refinishing going on in the news lately??

Message edited by author 2006-08-30 19:58:58.
08/30/2006 08:00:19 PM · #6
If THAT is considered good enough PS work for the NY Times, then I'm putting in my resume to them tomorrow. I can't BELIEVE they would use that in a news article!
08/30/2006 08:03:13 PM · #7
I guess they REALLY wanted to make the girl stand out and not let that pesky wire get in the way...

btw... fotomann... i love you!! sack of potatoes, YES!!! :-) hahaha
08/30/2006 08:04:15 PM · #8
What I noticed is those mens eyes are pointing toward her face it seems. what a novel concept. They are definately looking much higher than I'd expect them to be looking. Quite refreshing.
08/30/2006 08:06:05 PM · #9
YEAH THE WIRE. HOW MANY NONE PHOTOGRAPHERS WOULD NOTICE THAT AT A GLANCE. I'LL TELL YOU, NONE.
08/30/2006 08:07:08 PM · #10
Originally posted by saracat:

Is there a plague of poor-photo-refinishing going on in the news lately??

Yep -- here's a thread from earlier today -- although I think in that case (CBS) it was a "promotional" picture, not "editorial content."
08/30/2006 08:18:31 PM · #11
I'm sorry but that photog and editor are idiots. Did they not see the smoke story?
08/30/2006 08:25:00 PM · #12
Wait, I thought the NY Times had a very strict policy against touchups. What gives?
08/30/2006 08:29:10 PM · #13
This has to be THE most hysterical "bad retouching" image of the week :-)

R.
08/30/2006 08:31:40 PM · #14
Oh, the retouching... ok yeah... it sucks... I though this was about the men looking at the lady.
08/30/2006 08:33:09 PM · #15
I guess I'm stupid and don't see what "editing" was done. The wire appears to go off perhaps in the crowd, maybe someone is holding a microphone, or similar, who knows. What I do see is that no matter how bad it looks, the wire was left in place on the plywood.
I think the editors are very subtle sometimes in their cropping. The focal point here was not the young lady, but the looks and eyes of the troops. Yes, her legs jump out, but in a more supplemental or secondary focal point to further the story. Had she been visible in whole, the distraction of where our eyes went would have shifted the whole meaning of this shot.

What we often think as bad composition is really photojournalism well done.
08/30/2006 08:41:53 PM · #16
Originally posted by BradP:

I guess I'm stupid and don't see what "editing" was done. The wire appears to go off perhaps in the crowd, maybe someone is holding a microphone, or similar, who knows. What I do see is that no matter how bad it looks, the wire was left in place on the plywood.
I think the editors are very subtle sometimes in their cropping. The focal point here was not the young lady, but the looks and eyes of the troops. Yes, her legs jump out, but in a more supplemental or secondary focal point to further the story. Had she been visible in whole, the distraction of where our eyes went would have shifted the whole meaning of this shot.

What we often think as bad composition is really photojournalism well done.


dude look at it again you can easily see where the mic cord was cloned out going towards her mouth. the colors don't match.
08/30/2006 08:41:58 PM · #17
Originally posted by BradP:

I guess I'm stupid and don't see what "editing" was done. The wire appears to go off perhaps in the crowd, maybe someone is holding a microphone, or similar, who knows.


You've got to be kidding Brad. Look at the stripe that appears on the wall. Notice how it gracefully mimics how a cord would go from where it disappears to where she would be holding it.

It also doesn't look natural if you try to see it as going into the crowd.

I sent an email to the NYTimes asking what's up. I'd like to see what their response is.
08/30/2006 08:45:33 PM · #18
I think there was more than just a cable edited out of this shot.

Look at the hands of the tall guy with glasses. His hands are blurry and the left side of his unifrom is a different colour to the right.

Was there something/someone there that shouldn't have been?

EDIT: The consiracy theorist in me....

Message edited by author 2006-08-30 20:46:29.
08/30/2006 08:48:52 PM · #19
I think he's just clapping and the discoloration is her shadow (which has some relfected stage lighting in it) maybe

08/30/2006 08:49:03 PM · #20
Originally posted by wimbello:


Look at the hands of the tall guy with glasses. His hands are blurry and the left side of his unifrom is a different colour to the right.

Was there something/someone there that shouldn't have been?



You are right... and you'd think he'd be closer to the stage, there IS a gap there.

Edit: Danr typos

Message edited by author 2006-08-30 20:49:45.
08/30/2006 08:52:46 PM · #21
I think he's just clapping and it's motion blur.
08/30/2006 08:53:42 PM · #22
I think Clinton was there supporting the troops :-)
08/30/2006 08:54:59 PM · #23
OK, so I'm a moron!! Never even saw that! Told ya I was stupid.

' . substr('//img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif', strrpos('//img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif', strrpos('//img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif', '/') + 1) . '
08/30/2006 08:55:24 PM · #24
When the whole Reuters thing was going on, one of the blogs I was looking at referred to it a "fauxtography". Here is just another "good" example. Or bad, depending upon how you want to phrase it. You would think that with so much attention on it lately, they would be more careful.
08/30/2006 09:04:59 PM · #25
just in case anyone is wondering about the validity of the shot, here's another from the same folder (though i haven't really looked to see if it's touched up)
ny times image

here's an article with some background on the photog, jim wilson. check out the caption...his title is Chief Picture Assignment Editor--unbelievable...sigh...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/05/2020 05:20:22 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/05/2020 05:20:22 AM EDT.