Tim Gruber and Jenn Ackerman use both photography and video to tell stories for editorial and commercial clients. 
Not sure how we might help you? 
Coming Soon! Every year we'll be publishing at least two magazines of our work. Look for our first issue soon.
Update: It looks like Mr Thomspon has since deleted his blog entry discussing his ethics. Here’s the cached version of that post thanks to Google if you’re still interested.
Here’s another painful use\abuse of Photoshop and ethics. The sad thing is the photographer seems to understand the ethics when it comes to photojournalism, but yet still sees nothing wrong with his actions and stands behind his photo that should be labeled as a photo illustration.
The before and after by Mr. Thompson:
Photo Illustration by: Doug Thompson
Here’s the original post in which my co-worker, Eric Brady, brought attention to the problem.
Mr. Thompson writes of his image:
Is it dishonest? That depends on how you present the image. The National Press Photographers Association has guidelines on digital manipulation of photos.
To which he concludes:
The photograph here did not, in my opinion, deceive the public. When it was posted I explained it was digitally enhanced to improve the detail on the moon.
I also sharpened the edges of the moon and cleaned up the haze that was more visible in the photo than to the naked eye. Working just on the moon took over three hours. I spent another hour or so cleaning up other parts of the image before saving and posting it.
I’m sorry but anything you spend over 3 hours on in Photoshop is beyond a simple toning job. Hello photo illustration.
It is an example of what can be done with Photoshop if one has the patience and training.
News organizations have differing guidelines for what may or may not been done to digital images. Some prohibit even dodging and burning (lightening or darkening an area of the photograph for emphasis or detail). Media General, which owns The Floyd Press, allows dodging and burning, but requires that photos that are extensively altered be identified as a “photo illustration.”
And why wasn’t this photo classified as such?
In the cutline, we did explain how it was taken but — in hindsight — I should have included a more detailed description of what was done. I will write a more complete explanation for next week’s edition.
Hopefully that includes a correction and a letter explaining the ethics and responsibility you have to your readers in not deceiving them.
In addition to being a photojournalist, I’m also a commercial photographer who produces prints for clients and for display in galleries and shows. Many of these are enhanced with Photoshop in ways that are acceptable for gallery use but not for publication by a news organization. I also post Photoshop enhanced photos on this web site. It is important for me, and other photojournalists, to remember that when we work in both venues that journalism has different rules and guidelines.
I couldn’t have said it better myself Mr. Thompson. So why then are you trying to pass something off as journalism that is obviously meant for an art gallery wall?
This sounds all to familiar to the Allan Detrich incident that recently took place. (I interned at The Blade last summer where Allan worked at the time.)
The readers trust is all we have and once you break that you might as well hang up your cameras.
“…images that show a detailed moon in an evening sky without direct sunlight are invariably composites or double exposures. The moon is as bright as daylight, and thus cannot be properly exposured in an image made after sunset that shows detail in the landscape.”
- Galen Rowell, Mountain Light p.217
I dug up Galen’s explanation, now 21 years old, not to weight in on whether the photo is “real” but why, in my opinion, it’s just not very effective. The moon is in full sunlight (think mid-day in Miami), and yet it is rendered with tones very similar to spectators in the foreground, which are definitely not in full sunlight.
I have no idea whether the moon detail was actually in the original capture made by Thomson. I do know that the overall effect, at least to this viewer, is that the relative brightness of the elements in the picture are out of whack.
Kevin
Tim:
You and Eric are welcome to your opinion but you neglect to mention that when I posted the photo on my blog I said up front that it had been modified in Photoshop and that I spent three hours on it. I also advised my editors of what was done to the photo when it was submitted. Both of this situation when I submitted the photo.
And, while we’re on the subject of “ethics,” do you, as an “ethical” photojournalist, make it a point to reprint someone else’s work on your website without permission? I don’t recall getting a request from you to reprint the photos. Is that ethical? At the very least it is common courtesy.
Please remember that one cannot preach ethics if one does not practice it first.
Thanks for your thoughts Doug.
Tim
Hmmm, Mr Thompson makes an interesting point about “fair use,” and while I’m not a lawyer, I think it means reproducing the photo in its original form with the text, ads, headlines, etc. intact.
This brings up an interesting question: what did the original scene look like to someone who was at this concert? And does that matter?
Given our eyes can capture a greater dynamic range than the digital sensor, and if we enchance pictures to overcome the technical weakness of digital photography and produce an image that’s much closer to what someone experienced at the concert, is that unethical?
I’m not sure that image is closer to what people at the concert saw since I wasn’t there.
Should our ethical decision be driven by trying to capture “reality?”
Tim, I did not take the post down. I had transferred to a new server over the weekend and we were having trouble with the database and posts were appearing and diesappearing. We did a complete backup and restore this afternoon and it looks like all URLs are working fine. The post is right where it always was. I wish you had checked with me before claiming I had deleted it. I had not. I did remove the comment thread because it had become a forum for personal invective and insults.
What is different is the final image. Because of the debate, I went back and looked at each of the files and layers that were used during enhancement. I tried backing off three levels of enhancement and the image that now appears on my web site is, I feel, a more accurate portayal of the moon. It is still a photo illustration and is identified as such.
Was this a learning experience? Yes, it was. I Photoshop images on Blue Ridge Muse frequently but try to make sure I give the reader an explanation of what I did when I do so. I teach a class in advanced Photoshop techniques at the local arts center. As I said I also use Photoshop and other image manipulation software to prepare some images for gallery display but those images are always identified as “photo illustrations” or “digitally enhanced images” the same goes for photo illustrations that are sold through stock vendors.
I had not submitted a Photoshopped image for publication in our local weekly before but, in discussions with the editor, told her I had this image I had created to show the moon over the festival on opening night. She asked to see it. I explained what I did and provided an explanation of how I shot and processed it but did not follow up to see how the cutline was handled. The paper is published remotely and an editor 90 miles away handles final layout. I have written a clarification this week that says the photo failed to state that it was an illustration. The editors tell me they are satisfied that I was honest with them but I doubt that I will ever dabble in photo illustration for news use again.
I was wrong and take responsibility for the way it was handled. I have said so on my blog. But I have to ask that why no shooter who has criticized me here or elsewhere took the time to call or email and ask for details? I would have been glad to discuss it with anyone who took the time to do so. I have 40 plus years in this business and hope that I would have given a colleague at least that common courtesy.
–Doug
sigh…
not that i’m justifying photoshopping anything, or manipulating a file in anyway… but the sad thing is… it didn’t make the photo any better. i don’t understand…
doug’s background in journalism seems extensive, but mostly in writing. how tough is it to see that digitally enhancing a file and adding something to it is akin to reworking a quote to make it better, or making up description because it makes the story better.
ethics are ethics. you either have them or you don’t. and unfortunately, in my eyes, ethics = truth and that’s all we have as journalists. why destroy it?
hi i enjoyed the read