Sacramento Bee photographer fired for photo manipulation!

[Dan Brown]

OUCH! This photographer has been with the Bee forever!! http://alexandraerin.tumblr.com/post...o-manipulation

[James Shadle]

Thanks Dan.
IMO misrepresenting news photos is a huge no no.

[Dan Brown]

Thanks Dan.
IMO misrepresenting news photos is a huge no no.

I agree. He's history!

[Marina Scarr]

An unfortunate story.

[Doug West]

At least he had the sun at his back

[Chris Knight]

This was all over the news. I do not understand why they feel they have to do this the original shot was acceptable but I guess he figured he could get away with it. They were taking an award away from him also but that one looked like all he did was up the shadow protection in post just brought up the reds. It was a shot of a fire.
When doing the news it should be as shot. Just get your setting in camera first.

[Matt Fragale]

I don't know... that particular image... the meaning is not changed by the work he did on the photo; just the angle of one of the birds' head to make for a more pleasant photo. I would think that even for photojournalism, it wouldn't be a major no no to make a better picture that also isn't false. If it misrepresented what happened, that'd be one thing, but this.... meh. I could see if these were two people and the change in faces led to an assumption that some argument was happening or something, but birds? Really? And why on earth would anyone even care that this was changed? Are the birds going to sue anyone for misrepresentation of their images or libel? It's just crazy. Crazy crazy crazy that a photographer has lost his job over something so trivial.

[Chris Ober]

Trivial?? He created an image that did not happen as it was recorded by combining two separate ones. It's not about the silly notion that the birds won't care or sue, it's about integrity and honestly in photojournalism, and following the rules.

From the NPPA's code of Ethics...

Visual journalists and those who manage visual news productions are accountable for upholding the following standards in their daily work:

1. Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
2. Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.
3. Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work.
4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.
5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events.
6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.
7. Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation.
8. Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage.
9. Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.

I don't know... that particular image... the meaning is not changed by the work he did on the photo; just the angle of one of the birds' head to make for a more pleasant photo. I would think that even for photojournalism, it wouldn't be a major no no to make a better picture that also isn't false. If it misrepresented what happened, that'd be one thing, but this.... meh. I could see if these were two people and the change in faces led to an assumption that some argument was happening or something, but birds? Really? And why on earth would anyone even care that this was changed? Are the birds going to sue anyone for misrepresentation of their images or libel? It's just crazy. Crazy crazy crazy that a photographer has lost his job over something so trivial.

[Gerald Kelberg]

So, if I photograph those birds at my feeder, am I "altering or influencing events" or are my subjects receiving material reward.

Boy! Looks like Alan Murphy is going to be dead meat on this count!

[Chris Ober]

If you're a photojournalist, reporting it as news or work for an agency that is guided by those rules, yes.

[Gerald Kelberg]

Chris - I'm disappointed that you didn't come up with an answer to the question. Which is it? Altering or influencing,or material reward. "Yes" isn't an option!

[Chris Ober]

The question doesn't make sense for this.
I think it's fairly clear that #5 and #7 in their ethics guidelines wouldn't be applicable in this case but #6 would.

[Jay Gould]

Can anyone even suggest that a viewer was misled or the subject matter misrepresented? If that is the test than IMHO this is much ado about nothing!

No where is there a rule specifically forbidding ANY EDIT OR MANIPULATION. Perhaps there should be; however there isn't!

If the door is open then the application is wrong.

I do not interpret #6 as a blanket YOU CANNOT MAKE CHANGES.

What integrity was diminished?

[Ed Cordes]

Well, my opinion is that the photographer screwed up. The original image presented in the article on the left is actually pretty good. The alteration is a bit better, but certainly not worth altering reality by manipulating the images. IMHO, the basic real image was altered by changing the egret to one that was shot at a different time.

This stuff again creates an air of suspicion on all our images. I can't tell you how many times I show a good image shot with a 500 f4 at f4 with a smooth BG questioned as "did you Photo Shop the background". I point out that it was directly due to a shallow DOF and placement of my set up to create the smooth BG. I then often feel my explanation is not always accepted by those who shoot with P&S cameras that just don't have that capability so the questioner hasn't a clue what I am talking about. When a respected pro manipulates and doesn't disclose we are all hurt.

[Jay Gould]

Ed, was the subject matter misrepresented or the view misled, and if so, how? Yes, the head is a different angle; yes, the frog is better depicted.

However, at the end of the day frankly this is much ado about nothing! Frankly, there is more to this story than meets the eye.

Yes, there wasn't disclosure; yes, he was caught out.

However, the paper could have taken the position that this type of change since it clearly did not misrepresent or mislead, is insignificant and within the permitted changes.

Otherwise, Rule #6 should not exist!

[Bill Jobes]

The NPPA's guidelines aren't directly relevant in this case.

The photographer was fired, according to the newspaper editor's statement to readers, for violating the Sacramento Bee's "ethics policy forbidding the manipulation of documentary images."

And it happened three times that the editors became aware of; the other two incidents demonstrably more serious than the bird image.

Here's a link to the editor's statement:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/423...r-readers.html

Having spent more than four decades in professional journalism as a photographer, reporter, editor and newsroom manager at several daily newspapers, I can state from direct experience that the Bee's action to terminate is the rule, not the exception in such a case.

[Jay Gould]

Hindsight is sooooooooo wonderful!

The Bee's ethics policy and style guide prohibit such alteration, saying, "To maintain the credibility of The Sacramento Bee, documentary photographs will not be manipulated in any way that alters the reality of the image."

Instead of avoiding a problem The Bee creates the problem by setting up a subjective standard, to wit: has the manipulating altered the reality of the image.

Frankly, in my subjective opinion the firing should have occurred in 2009 when he made the fire appear more significant by enlarging the flames.

The description of the manipulations of the other two images I do not believe altered the reality of the image.

The Bee would be best served after this by eliminating any manipulation of the image: what you shoot is what you publish because even a change in contrast could "alter reality".

[Bill Jobes]

Jay, there was no 'hindsight' involved here. After the egret controversy erupted, the editors were alerted by an anonymous email tipster to go back and review the fire image.

Any photographer surely would have been immediately terminated if the 2009 manipulation had been discovered then.

[Matt Fragale]

yes, trivial. Based on that code of conduct, the manipulation in the bird picture misrepresented nothing. The birds engaged in exactly the conduct depicted by the photo. The photographer just used the best looking part of both of the birds actions. It didn't change what one might think of either bird or of what happened.

However, having now seen that the photographer made changes to other photos that did manipulate the impression of something (i.e., by enlarging flames).... no, I still think he's in a gray area. I'm no journalist, but there were flames present and to some extent that was serious, I assume. Does "subtly altering" their size really change anyone's mind about what happened? The paper's statement says the rule violated is that documentary photos should not be altered in a way that alters the reality of the image, which I think you could argue (and I'm sure the photographer did) that these changes did not. Two of the three were not at all "news" items in my mind. One was a couple of birds engaged in a competition for a frog and another was a picture of a person in a field of sunflowers and he removed his own shadow. The third, even the newspaper says was a subtle change in the flames. I dunno. i think I'd have to see both pictures. I agree that in the case of news, altering a photograph is bad. And the flame probably was unnecessary and shouldn't have been done. The other two, I don't care about as a potential consumer of those news stories. it sounds to me like the guy is just trying to present photographs that look good in his paper. I think firing is probably extreme. Given the fact that he'd been there a long time, I would think that they would have given him some sort of administrative punishment and maybe checked his work more carefully for awhile after they clarified the lines of demarcation for him. However, obviously we don't have all the facts about what went on. Perhaps there's more to it than we know and he is utterly deserving of termination.

[Jay Gould]

Jay, there was no 'hindsight' involved here. After the egret controversy erupted, the editors were alerted by an anonymous email tipster to go back and review the fire image.

Any photographer surely would have been immediately terminated if the 2009 manipulation had been discovered then.

We now agree!!

[George Cottay]

Photojournalism is a different world because newspapers still consider ourselves the first draft of history.

What does a photojournalist do when a great shot of a dignitary is marred by a telephone growing out of the the subject's head? S/he either submits it pole and all or tosses it.

The seems strange in the extreme. What's the harm in removing the offending pole? The harm lies in portraying the pole as missing at that time of that day.

Isn't that pretty extreme? Yep. Photojournalists don't like it one little bit but understand and live with it.

If you happen to meet a working photojournalist, you might want to say something like, "Thank you for your service!"