Author Topic: Editorial Editing (Read 771 times)

jsmithzz · « **on:** October 03, 2011, 21:56 »

Was searching in forums and this was locked (I always seem to get quicker answers here) but was also wondering about cloning out things like small lights or other very minor reflected things for pictures taken through a window that wouldn't at all impact the overall image?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286702&page=1

jsnover · « **Reply #1 on:** October 03, 2011, 22:23 »

The strict answer is that you can't do that sort of editing. No removing power lines or anything else that is in the frame regardless of whether it's ugly, unimportant or in your opinion irrelevant. You are permitted to remove sensor spots, use minor noise reduction and do basic contrast enhancement, but that's it. There were some examples of cropping that's OK vs. cropping that isn't; one set is in here.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #2 on:** October 04, 2011, 11:55 »

Quote from: jsmithzz on October 03, 2011, 21:56

Was searching in forums and this was locked (I always seem to get quicker answers here) but was also wondering about cloning out things like small lights or other very minor reflected things for pictures taken through a window that wouldn't at all impact the overall image?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286702&page=1

Let me add to what jsnover wrote.

N O !

Integrity of editorial has become a big topic after people were found to be altering (photoshopped) images for Reuters. Also posed "news" is forbidden, not that TV news doesn't find their frauds hypocritical. One guy was penalized for removing an errant foot from a soccer image. (maybe a little extreme, but that's the way it goes) and Colors and other things, basic white balance, no artistic alterations, no changing background, no cropping to change the truth.

No adding or subtracting elements from an image! That's what you asked about.

Reuters Photo Fraud, caught with their pants down, good reading! http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #3 on:** October 04, 2011, 14:41 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 04, 2011, 11:55

Quote from: jsmithzz on October 03, 2011, 21:56
Was searching in forums and this was locked (I always seem to get quicker answers here) but was also wondering about cloning out things like small lights or other very minor reflected things for pictures taken through a window that wouldn't at all impact the overall image?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286702&page=1

Let me add to what jsnover wrote.

N O !

Integrity of editorial has become a big topic after people were found to be altering (photoshopped) images for Reuters. Also posed "news" is forbidden, not that TV news doesn't find their frauds hypocritical. One guy was penalized for removing an errant foot from a soccer image. (maybe a little extreme, but that's the way it goes) and Colors and other things, basic white balance, no artistic alterations, no changing background, no cropping to change the truth.

No adding or subtracting elements from an image! That's what you asked about.

Reuters Photo Fraud, caught with their pants down, good reading! http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

Very old story and rather unsurprising. Look at the hypocrisy over the reporting of Syria, Libya, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's response to protests in their countries. Or how we bombed Gaddafi to "protect civilians" and now we're bombing a city full of civilians to help our pals with their effort to overrun it by force - I've yet to hear any news station point out the contradiction or the apparent violation of the UN mandate.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #4 on:** October 04, 2011, 18:23 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 04, 2011, 14:41

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 04, 2011, 11:55
Quote from: jsmithzz on October 03, 2011, 21:56
Was searching in forums and this was locked (I always seem to get quicker answers here) but was also wondering about cloning out things like small lights or other very minor reflected things for pictures taken through a window that wouldn't at all impact the overall image?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286702&page=1

Let me add to what jsnover wrote.

N O !

Integrity of editorial has become a big topic after people were found to be altering (photoshopped) images for Reuters. Also posed "news" is forbidden, not that TV news doesn't find their frauds hypocritical. One guy was penalized for removing an errant foot from a soccer image. (maybe a little extreme, but that's the way it goes) and Colors and other things, basic white balance, no artistic alterations, no changing background, no cropping to change the truth.

No adding or subtracting elements from an image! That's what you asked about.

Reuters Photo Fraud, caught with their pants down, good reading! http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

Very old story and rather unsurprising. Look at the hypocrisy over the reporting of Syria, Libya, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's response to protests in their countries. Or how we bombed Gaddafi to "protect civilians" and now we're bombing a city full of civilians to help our pals with their effort to overrun it by force - I've yet to hear any news station point out the contradiction or the apparent violation of the UN mandate.

Well what got me was New Orleans where people on roofs were stranded, but happened to have clean white poster board and markers to make "help me" signs. Odd that the news crew flew over them from all kinds of angles to show their plight. It was most likely staged!

What the heck does deposing a ruthless dictator, who murdered his own people (and there have been a few of them recently) have to do with editorial photos that are faked and editing editorial photos? You lost me in the politics of hate.

You are in Great Britain right and America did come to your rescue back in the 40s when Hitler wanted to own you. But I actually think you are just bitter because you lost the war over here in 1783 when we broke away from the oppressive British Empire.

holgs · « **Reply #5 on:** October 05, 2011, 03:05 »

Minor editing such as this should be ok

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20111005-303315.html

sharpshot · « **Reply #6 on:** October 05, 2011, 03:38 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 04, 2011, 18:23

....You are in Great Britain right and America did come to your rescue back in the 40s when Hitler wanted to own you. But I actually think you are just bitter because you lost the war over here in 1783 when we broke away from the oppressive British Empire.

"Rescue" is the wrong word. The US eventually helped out but it wasn't until 1942, the war started in 1939. Hitler had declared war on the US, so you could say that GB stopped him invading your country

The US helped financially but it took GB years to pay back that debt. I'm grateful for what the US did in WWII but I also have a lot of respect for all the other countries that fought Hitler. It's estimated that around 10 million died in the Russian military, I'm grateful to them too.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #7 on:** October 05, 2011, 08:19 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 04, 2011, 18:23

What the heck does deposing a ruthless dictator, who murdered his own people (and there have been a few of them recently) have to do with editorial photos that are faked and editing editorial photos? You lost me in the politics of hate.

You are in Great Britain right and America did come to your rescue back in the 40s when Hitler wanted to own you. But I actually think you are just bitter because you lost the war over here in 1783 when we broke away from the oppressive British Empire.

The link is projecting a news agenda with little regard for honesty.

What has WWII and the colonial rebellion got to do with deposing Gadaffi? It's true that Lend-Lease did keep the UK going during WWII, but British taxpayers were still paying for that until ten years ago.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #8 on:** October 05, 2011, 13:27 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 05, 2011, 03:38

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 04, 2011, 18:23
....You are in Great Britain right and America did come to your rescue back in the 40s when Hitler wanted to own you. But I actually think you are just bitter because you lost the war over here in 1783 when we broke away from the oppressive British Empire.

"Rescue" is the wrong word. The US eventually helped out but it wasn't until 1942, the war started in 1939. Hitler had declared war on the US, so you could say that GB stopped him invading your country The US helped financially but it took GB years to pay back that debt. I'm grateful for what the US did in WWII but I also have a lot of respect for all the other countries that fought Hitler. It's estimated that around 10 million died in the Russian military, I'm grateful to them too.

Ah here we go. I won't disagree but history also includes the lend lease act and many unofficial aides before it was official. And I think there was something about Pearl Harbor and Germany declaring war on the US, that tipped the US into the war. LOL

"American Bund and the America First movement were especially active in opposing aid to the Allies. The American Communists also opposed aid—until Germany attacked the Soviet Union; then they demanded immediate intervention." Funny how that works? Those wacky Socialists were against the war, until it came to a theatre near them...

The other part was kind of like deposing King George, and I think some people are still bitter. But no problem, the US Civil war is still going on, even though that ended 146 years ago. people have a hard time forgetting disagreements.

According to Monty Python that's why the Dodo is extinct, and I believe them!

Meanwhile, Editorial... No editing contents, removing or adding elements. No excessive color adjustments (and already we have, "what's excessive", a subjective term), no changing the situation by cropping, no staged news, and basically, things being as they really are. Changing to B&W is not a problem, but making a brown sky blue is not allowed. Funny that IS shows an example of healing skin as not allowed.

Another fake photo controversy: World Press Photo has disqualified one of the winners

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/03/03/world-press-photo-disqualifies-winner/

Also: It wasn’t the crop, nor the post-processing, that caused the photograph to be disqualified, but the removal of the portion of the foot that is visible between the thumb and fingers of the hand being bandaged.

"Having grown up in Belfast in the 70's I can say that at least 80% of "events" photographed were either staged or put on for the cameras.."

"Several years ago a local TV cameraman broke the "unwritten rules" and videoed not just the protest, but the preparations beforehand. We saw the guard sergeant and the protest organizer politely discussing how the event would be conducted; the sergeant explaining to the protestors what they should do if they wished to be arrested, and what to do if they merely wanted to demonstrate; guards and organizers agreeing that elderly protestors and children should go first, so they could get out of the cold sooner; even guards suggesting to protestors' friends the best places to stand to get a good picture or video with the base's sign in the background."

"Terje Helleso — a nature photographer who was named Nature Photographer of the Year by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency in 2010 — was discovered to have published multiple images in which stock photographs of hard-to-find animals were Photoshopped into nature scenes."

Related entertaining stories:

Reuters Photograph of Rebel Firing RPG Accused of Being Fake
Swedish Wildlife Photographer of the Year Admits to Faking Photos
Truth, Lies and Deception in Photography
Apple Photoshopped a Galaxy Out of Its Default Wallpaper Photo
Photo Tampering Throughout History