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?

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

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

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.

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