"When you see a wildlife photo or film that looks too good to be true, it probably is." Audubon Magazine's Ted Williams investigates
game farms and the widespread use of captive animals in wildlife photography. (via
) [more inside]
posted by The Mouthchew
on Mar 18, 2010 -
Charlotte Observer photographer Patrick Schneider has been fired.
After a 2003 incident
in which the North Carolina Press Association stripped him of his awards for three pictures (before and after can be seen here
) the Observer has fired Schneider over the alteration of this
image. The question remains among photojournalists: is it unethical
to alter a photo in such a way that it more closely resembles what the eye saw and the camera is unable to capture, or is this a deceptive practice that damages the public's trust?
posted by TheGoldenOne
on Jul 28, 2006 -
Press photographer stripped of award;
accused of overly darkening some portions in the digital editing process. Nothing was added or moved. Explains N.C. Press Photographers Assoc. president Chuck Liddy: You might say, "Gosh, I don't like the way this background looks I can get rid of this with a couple of keystrokes". No contortions in the darkroom with your hands and a dodging wand. No making ten or fifteen prints over a two hour period to get that print just right. Nope, just go and use the lasso tool, yank those levels to the max and VIOLA! the background disappears. Burning has always been an acceptable action. Burning to "de-emphasize" a background is something all of us do. But deleting the background by using some of the powerful tools Photoshop offers is totally unacceptable and violates the ethics code we adhere to.
Schneider, the photographer, responds in an NPR interview (scroll down to audio link).
In this allegedly unethical photo
, Schneider says he corrected for overexposure. Is this a backlash against digital manipulation, which rankles the old school because it is simply too easy?
posted by found missing
on Aug 30, 2003 -