Editorial - Continued from Independent Thread

[RacePhoto]

I keep saying it should have it's own thread, but didn't do anything about that. 

If you clone things out of Editorial, you MUST mark it altered. You seem to be missing the second part about news/editorial photos. They cannot be photoshopped, heavily altered or have things pasted or removed. This would include taking out people, changing the color of the sky, adding a Moon and all kinds of creative modifications. There is a certain level of accuracy and integrity that's necessary.

As mentioned, "editorial" restrictions usually only refer to the idea that the content in them is unreleased.  There is no requirement that they be unaltered or anything else, in general.  That would be a per agent thing, ie "Any submissions marked editorial must be generally unaltered" or something.

True, it is just unreleased material, but there are integrity and accuracy standards which have been raised in recent years. An interesting page with some abuse, which starts with a shot of Lincoln (yes the President) made over 20 years after his death. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/

I take the approach of news photojournalism, which keeps with the guidelines. Of course that doesn't include everything "editorial" but it should if it's supposed to be news, educational or editorial.  http://www.digitalphotojournalist.org/

If nothing else, read this page: http://www.digitalphotojournalist.org/information2.html

Here's the very short version.

"In our opinion the only image manipulation acceptable with a photojournalistic image. are as follows:

    * Sharpen
    * Correct Color and Exposure
    * Cropping

Any Digital Postproduction beyond these are unacceptable. As photographers we are not always in control of how the images we capture are used and manipulated however we are responsible and must be heard on this subject.

Below are guidelines set out by Digital Custom Corporation:

These guidelines are sponsored by DigitalCustom Group, Inc. to assist primarily news, travel and nature editors to formulate internal policies for the ethical, objective application of digital image editing procedures to journalistic photographs."

Then the simple answer... It's Dishonest. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070415/NEWS08/704150316

Career Suicide by Photoshop:
http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2007/04/17/ethics-of-photography-career-suicide-by-photoshop/

"No Alterations, period. Not even to clone out the doggy poop on the sidewalk. You don�t �clean up� news images, and you don�t certainly never, ever, ever, add things that weren�t in front of the lens." Gary Crabbe

In the end, I'm arguing ethics, which seems to get me nowhere arguing with some people who would rather make 50 cents on a sale. It's obvious that some editors would rather sell a tabloid at the check-out counter with pasted and heavily altered photos. Consider this a general industry acceptable standard and I adhere to this approach. Others may differ in their personal opinion.

I'm looking at this from a news background but if someone is publishing editorial content it should also be considered that it could be used as news and information, possibly a text book, not just unreleased "art".

All editorial is not photojournalism... but because of the license type, it could be used that way. Then what?

[alias]

All editorial is not photojournalism... but because of the license type, it could be used that way. Then what?

Editorial is not a 'licence type'.

Cropping can be just as much of an issue as any of your other concerns. Either in camera or afterwards. Captioning too. Or simply deciding what to point your camera at. None of us is impartial or neutral and nor are editors and publishers. Context is everything and, ultimately, you can only trust or believe in what you choose to trust or believe in. There is no definitive truth.

[RacePhoto]

It is a provision of the license, unless you are trying to argue that there are only two types of photo license, RM and RF? 

You must have model and property releases for relevant subject matter in an image. If you don�t have them you can set restrictions to licence the image for �Editorial use only�.

Editorial USE is limited, it isn't a free for all, way to use things without a release. Just like the foolish people who claim free use without understand what it means.

Did you read any of the links? Probably not. Now there's some definitive truth for you.

The point is not specific alterations or misuse, but any way the photo does not reflect the actual situation. Sure that could include cropping.

Try this:  http://www.photoaim.com/gen599.html

Editorial markets demand authenticity, documentation and accuracy.

Or maybe this?  http://www.ct-graphics.com/licseu.html

Standard Editorial Use Royalty-Free License Agreement

...Below are examples of editorial image uses allowed under the terms of the Standard Editorial-Use License Agreement:

And last of all Getty License Information - http://www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/LicenseInfo.aspx

"Editorial (RM)
Products in our editorial collections are licensed with restrictions on usage, such as limitations on size, placement, duration of use and geographic distribution. Editorial products must be used in an "editorial" manner, which means use relating to events that are newsworthy or of public interest. If you wish to use an image or film from our editorial collections for a non-editorial use, you must contact a sales representative to assist you. All licenses of editorial products are subject to Getty Images Editorial, Rights-Managed and Rights-Ready Image and Footage License Agreement."

All editorial is not photojournalism... but because of the license type, it could be used that way. Then what?

Editorial is not a 'licence type'.

Cropping can be just as much of an issue as any of your other concerns. Either in camera or afterwards. Captioning too. Or simply deciding what to point your camera at. None of us is impartial or neutral and nor are editors and publishers. Context is everything and, ultimately, you can only trust or believe in what you choose to trust or believe in. There is no definitive truth.

[YadaYadaYada]

Alias needs to tell Getty that editorial license is not a license type they have it all wrong.

[alias]

Alias needs to tell Getty that editorial license is not a license type they have it all wrong.

Not so. Editorial usage at Getty is (RM). It is a specific set of restrictions under RM. See here. RacePhoto has quoted it above. Editorial (RM).

RacePhoto your stuff about a photo  "reflect(ing) the actual situation" ignores the fact that in news and documentary situations the actual story is always going to be a subjective point of view. I read your links and this is all stuff which has been argued about for ever. The "actual situation" can never be definitely defined and certainly not by a photograph which will always be a single moment, isolated from a particular perspective, stylized by the medium itself and de contextualised.

These are certainly important things to think about. But reportage is either something like poetry or else it is always, to some extent, a form of propaganda. Because nobody is ever neutral and because photography itself is a manipulation.

On the less news intensive side of things (eg travel, lifestyle etc) these arguments are not even worth considering. In that context editorial simply means that the image is not being directly used to push a product - but rather to tell a story or to describe something. Even if the publication is ad supported. There are gray areas eg book covers.

[Freedom]

Well said.

Not so. Editorial usage at Getty is (RM). It is a specific set of restrictions under RM. See here. RacePhoto has quoted it above. Editorial (RM).

RacePhoto your stuff about a photo  "reflect(ing) the actual situation" ignores the fact that in news and documentary situations the actual story is always going to be a subjective point of view. I read your links and this is all stuff which has been argued about for ever. The "actual situation" can never be definitely defined and certainly not by a photograph which will always be a single moment, isolated from a particular perspective, stylized by the medium itself and de contextualised.

These are certainly important things to think about. But reportage is either something like poetry or else it is always, to some extent, a form of propaganda. Because nobody is ever neutral and because photography itself is a manipulation.

On the less news intensive side of things (eg travel, lifestyle etc) these arguments are not even worth considering. In that context editorial simply means that the image is not being directly used to push a product - but rather to tell a story or to describe something. Even if the publication is ad supported. There are gray areas eg book covers.

[RacePhoto]

Another dead horse getting a beating. Some places, Editorial is RF, some it's RM. But it is a license provision. It is a license type. It's RF Editorial or RM editorial... On Alamy it's Licensed Editorial.  So it's neither RF nor RM but is Licensed in all cases. If licensed as editorial is not a license type, what is it?

Sure nothing is real, any photo can be misused or misrepresented. The idea of news photos is that they should not misrepresent, not that they might. They should not be edited to intentionally distort the real scene they are meant to capture.

A pencil is a sharp pointed stick and could kill someone, but that's not what it's supposed to be or how it's intended to be used. Same for photojournalism and news photos. Anything can be misused, it proves nothing. What is a straw man argument anyway? I keep seeing people refer to that type of logical fallacy.

Correct, if it's not commercial, or pushing a product, it opens the door for educational, free speech or editorial.

...the actual story is always going to be a subjective point of view.

That in itself is fairly subjective. Are you saying that nothing is real there are no facts? Some people don't believe in reality and create their own. But a photo is just a photo, it's the story that goes with it that can be subjective. The photo should tell the truth, without creative bias, which is the whole point. If someone lies about what's in the photo, that's a different problem.

...photography itself is a manipulation.

So are you a fan of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle or maybe a psychological approach like Rosenthal where, the fact that we are observing something can alter the events? 

[alias]

Are you saying that nothing is real there are no facts? Some people don't believe in reality and create their own. But a photo is just a photo, it's the story that goes with it that can be subjective.

How a photograph is taken, the angle, the framing, the moment chosen etc will influence how the image will be read by a viewer. And how you read an image will depend upon an infinite number if different social and cultural factors. The relationship between subjectivity and objectivity in images has been a major theme of the 20th century and was already being written about only a short time after the two original photographic processes were first announced.

Photography is not and never has been truth.

the fact that we are observing something can alter the events?

It's a separate issue but very clearly the mediation of an event can affect the outcome.

[willie]

How a photograph is taken, the angle, the framing, the moment chosen etc will influence how the image will be read by a viewer.
Photography is not and never has been truth.

good thread RAce.

alias, i agree with you too. photojournalism is , by rule, supposed to be objective. you learn that in journalism 101.
but yes, the media is corrupted , and many examples of such subjective and manipulation to move an opinion are evident everywhere. we see it every minute on say yahoo news, msn news, or worse the blatant news sites that cover the movie stars etc.

a simple distortion created by foreshortening, can make a little shark look like jaws. mr. flat nose suddenly looks like pinnochio.

 lighting can make Obama look viscious, cropping, perspective,etc.. can transform a respectable person into something sinister.

manipulation of "editorial" images  is consistently used by political parties at election time, to make their opponent "look bad". it's been done all the time, until it has become an art form, albeit vulgar.
is this journalism? well, to them it is.

yes, many editors deviate from their objectivity to simple give us the W5
by manipulating their images like so.  i agree.
the bottom line is news people have always been of two schools:
1) the old school of giving us objective w,w,w,w,w,..
2) the new school of sensationalism... to sell news to win viewers
for their advertisers.

but all in all, the days of finding a reporter who works like W.Eugene Smith is certainly long gone. I have yet to meet a photojournalist today, or from the 80's till today, who would pick up his work and walk out of the door when the editor wanted him to "lie" or "manipulate" the news.

journalism is supposed to be just that, objective reporting.
but many will argue that reportage to elicit an opinion, or to move an opinion, etcc.. is also journalism. 
whatever. it all depends on which editor you work for.
i worked for crooked editors whose interest were just to sell papers,
as much as i worked for editors who threw my photo essay  with the slightest hint of subjectivity out the door.
not many of us had the luxury of W Eugene Smith, who really worked for himself... not Times, not Life, not any one... but himself.
that' truly commendable, but that's for another thread. we won't get into that.

all in all, Race is right on one thing too, times have changed.
or rather, his quote from Dylan (not thomas but bob), said it many years ago,
and it still applies, TIMES ARE A CHANGING.

great thread, Race. i 'll give it back to you, and wiil continue reading ...

[alias]

I was not especially thinking so much about people being deliberately corrupt or manipulative.

Even with the best intentions we all subconsciously bring our inherent points of view to any subject whether we are looking at pictures or making making pictures.

And the very process of taking an image is of itself a manipulation and an intervention.

[willie]

I was not especially thinking so much about people being deliberately corrupt or manipulative.

Even with the best intentions we all subconsciously bring our inherent points of view to any subject whether we are looking at pictures or making making pictures.

And the very process of taking an image is of itself a manipulation and an intervention.

yes, you are right too.
 
if we really want to be sticky about it, like it or not, nothing is really objective.
even the fact that say, W E Smith's portrayal of Minimarta, is by itself an opinion.
.. his.
as Richard Avedon once said, in his quote on portraiture, even though it applies to photography in general..."The moment an emotion or fact is transformed into a photograph it is no longer a fact but an opinion. There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."

[RacePhoto]

I was not especially thinking so much about people being deliberately corrupt or manipulative.

Even with the best intentions we all subconsciously bring our inherent points of view to any subject whether we are looking at pictures or making making pictures.

And the very process of taking an image is of itself a manipulation and an intervention.

Yes, I understand, that's why I mentioned Heisinger's Uncertainty Principle.

Something I came up with later was, stand someone in front of a camera and they begin to pose, act, primp and mug. That is surely changing and effecting people when they see a lens. The next step is contrived photos and set-ups, which are ordinary fraud.

Cameras didn't create yellow journalism. I'll agree with you on just about everything being some sort of non-objective viewpoint, whether written or photographed. But there is still some effort to record accurate images for documentation and history. That's what NEWS editorial is supposed to be in theory.

I don't think Dorothea Lange shot news and reality either. As long as we look at her work as art not editorial, I'm fine. Otherwsie I'm completly on your side about manipulation just by taking a photo.

Andreas Feininger is interesting too since he was involved in perception and psychology.

I can appreciate your philosophical approach to photos, but I still believe that they do have valid historical use as a record of an image, rather than a record of a perception, after the fact. Peoples memories are much more flawed than photographs.   The duty of photojournalists is to attempt to be unbiased and accurate. It doesn't mean the the results are 100% that way. But the integrity of a photo when it's not creative or art, is another important factor.

Otherwise, we're back to, nothing is real.

[alias]

But there is still some effort to record accurate images for documentation and history. That's what NEWS editorial is supposed to be in theory.

And I think that what you do, what historical analysis leans towards increasingly, is that we do not just look at the photographs. We look at the photographs and simultaneously consider the context in which they have been taken, for what purpose and how they have been represented to us.

Because on their own, in isolation, they represent raw data but not, perhaps, information. Because information is data which has been usefully processed. So we try to read through what was intended with the photographs to see what is actually there. Possibly we sometimes almost need to partly ignore the original intent behind the image.

This is actually one of the reasons why photographs which were taken for a completely different reason often turn out to provide very useful content which the original photographer may not have been aware of or took for granted. For example city planning photographs (the images taken for architects and engineers) often contain a wealth of socially historical incidental content.

Edited: in the future our stock photography may very well tell us a good deal about the ideals of the society. Even the handshakes and poker chips. It will almost certainly be equally as culturally interesting as any documentary.

[travelstock]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/jul/10/iranianmissiletestsnotwhat

I think this is kinda the point that race is making... one image is editorial... the other isn't.

[alias]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/jul/10/iranianmissiletestsnotwhat

one image is editorial... the other isn't.

No they are both being used as editorial images even in this context. One of them is said to be more accurate than the other but we have to trust the context in which the image has been used.

And, in this specific context, they are being used to illustrate the subject of the article which is: government manipulation of media.

'Editorial' is a type of use. You have to either have faith in the context or else have confidence in your ability to read the signals.