LA Times fires photographer for altering image

Good for the LA Times.

a photo illustration can be altered, as long as it is identified as being altered.
But there was NO reason for the photog to alter this news photo for any sane reason. It didn't even help the composition all that much. Stupid move.

It wasn't even like the photog was trying to manipulate for propaganda purposes or change the reality at all, it was simply an asthetic preference.

Both photos conveyed the same story.

All three photos are so similar I don't see why he bothered.

From looking at the photos it seems like he changed the photos because he tought that they didn't convey the impression of what was going on on their own. I assume that he could only get one photo published, and resorted to Photoshop. Kind of worrying, because it's quite a good job, and difficult to spot.

He did do a decent job Pshopping it.

I think he wanted the soldier with his hand up while the man holding the child was looking up. So that changes the meaning of the photo, a bit.

The problem seems to be that nothing the guy has ever published can be trusted now. How many other photos has he altered?

There is a difference, One shows the man coming to the soldier with a child in his hand, looking as if he wanted help. The doctored pic shows the soldier with gun ready in hand, gesturing the guy to stop, the original one doesn't portray such agressiveness.

The guy deserved to be fired. And yes, there was obviously politically motivated.

I think it's just principle. You shouldn't alter the news.

Goes back to the media bias discussions.

yes, a news photo should never be altered. period. However, that's independent of political bias, not even on the same page.

It's a question of professional integrity. end of story. Doesn't matter if it was or wasn't politically motivated (I don't think so in this case, as I work around a lot of photogs, and I think it was more likely a case of frustration at not getting the better composed shot.)

I can see your impression of the photo pretty easily.
I don't know how or why you jumped to the "politically motivated" conclusion.

I am amazed that anyone noticed that the photo had been altered. I've been trying to find some clue but I can't. Then again the photo I have in front of me is the small-ish photo from the LAT online. :/

There are a couple of people who appear twice in the altered photo.

There is a guy that appears on both the left and right of the soldier...

He is looking out to the left of the frame. You can see his head on the right of the soldier and more of him to the left of the soldier.

Its making the soldier look more agressive against a man with a baby in his hand. You know, those baby killers we sent overseas?

I keep trying to figure out any other reason said Photographer did it..

I tend to agree. When I first saw the photos I thought, "well, it's not that big of a change." But it definitely changes the emotion of the photo like you mentioned, zim. Then I thought of the LA Times piece yesterday that compared the US patriots at the time of the revolution to the Iraqi military guerillas now. They sure do have an agenda and even little things like this show it.

well, if they did, they wouldn't have fired the photog. They would have given him a raise.

I am curious as to what went happened behind the scenes. Who found out about it, what was the reason they was fired. Surely this isn't the only time such thing has happened.

Is also qiute a giveaway.

I'm not really sure it imparts the soldier with more aggressiveness.

As for reasons:
It says he was a Times staff photographer. Does this mean he was a regular paid staff member, or could he be a freelance photog regularly working for the Times? Lerk?

I know from the radio business that most staff there tend to be freelance. Business is harsh, and any little edge you have over your competitors may mean an extra sale or two of a photo. Thus perhaps the pressure to make aesthetic edits.

Just conjecture here on my part, of course.

-s*

Good for the L.A. Times. They 'fessed up and took appropriate action.

I fail to see any political statement whatsoever in the altered image. Just some really bad judgment.

dont know the guy. It is customary, though for even freelance or "stringer" photogs to be credited as "staff", so you really can't go by that.
I'd say, though, by the fact he was let go implies he was staff. He might have been a glorified stringer in the area who was made fulltime staff at the start of the war. who knows?
I don't think it matters so much, since bad judgement is bad judgement, regardless of the employment arrangments.

Since the difference between the final meld and the two photos is very slight, I doubt the photog was trying to hold on to a job or make an award-winning photo out of it. I honestly think it was poor judgement based solely on aesthetics. A tweak, if you will, that still was stupid in macro but probably wasn't that insidious in intent.

he bothered because he wanted the soldier to appear more aggressive to the civilians..

how sad it is that some of our worst enemies are in this country.

I think you had better watch out. The UFO's are landing in your garden.

shows what little you know of photography and photo editing.
Look at the photos again. the first actual photo has the worst view of the man and the baby because he's looking off frame and the baby is not easily recognizable. Unfortunately, it also has the best view of the soldier, with part of his face visible and the posture more interesting.
The second actual photo has the best view of the man and baby, because he's looking inframe and at the soldier. Unfortunately, the soldier's posture is more static, you can't see his face, and you can't tell where he's looking.
In both actual photos, the two main foci are not looking at each other.
It seems to me the photog was trying to make a more dramatic overall photo by combining them. Its still wrong, but any photog presented with these two photos would have the same frustration...."d@mn why couldn't these two subjects have been looking at each other?, that would make a better photo"

Honestly, I work in the business, and have edited photos for many years as well as graphics. I don't think there's anything more sinister going on here than extremely bad judgement in pursuit of a great photo. Sadly, I think the composite was no more impactful, even for the manipulation...its sort of like a thief getting five years for stealing a six pack at a 7-11. The crime was not worth the punishment....it was wrong, but I wouldn't have done it with THAT photo, if I was going to risk my career.

FWIW, I think you guys are reading way too much into the political motivations. You have no idea how much photogs are into the PICTURE and not the BIG PICTURE. Its almost obssessive compulsive.

nimrod.

yes, it is a better pose of the soldier.. but it looks like he is "pushing away" the civilian holding the child. it paints a very negative picture of the soldier.

that's called bias, my fellow MacNN poster.

and btw, I've done photo editting and graphics for a good number of years too. I understand the concepts and the power of photo manipulation very well.

to Theo and Boots for sharp eyes!

Now I see it! <smacks forhead>

You are about my age. No way you can make an expert judgment on that. Jeez.

Architect, right?

thank you.



um, I'd be happy to compare resumes , if you'd like.


Looking at the stated agenda of your website, though, I'll concede you ARE probably more experienced at unethically manipulating photos to meet a political agenda.

not an expert judgement, but a very educated guess.

yes. architect.

i've never done anything of the sort.

i'm not a journalist. I don't even take photos that political in nature. the graphics work i mainly do is website graphics and marketing type graphics for my office. i've done photo manipulation before but generally touch up things like removing red eye, color adjustments, etc. etc.

Hey, you were at the LA Daily News in the late 1980s? I was at the OC Register at the time. Interviewed at the Daily News (didn't want to drive down to Orange County every day) but decided not to take the job after they seemed awfully eager for a urine sample (what was up with that?).

(sorry, off-topic)

LOL!

So why palm yourself off as an expert previously, and call me a nimrod for pointing out you don't seem to know photojournalism editing?

can't have it both ways.

(offtopic) yeah, I was a little taken aback at the urine sample. they picked me up at the airport and before even taking me to be interviewed without warning I had to pee in a cup. Not a good first impression. And it proved a benchmark for my whole experience there.
I passed, of course, but at the time I was extremely philosophically opposed to the idea. I felt it was putting employers in the position of law enforcement without any of the legal recourses.
It was not a good fit for me. It didn't help that 2 weeks after starting the new job my first wife had congestive heart failure. I was trying to visit her in the hospital as she lay dying and still work the more than 60 hours a week they required while still under probation.
then, she died, and I had an oppressive job situation with no friends to rely on. sheer hell.
(/offtopic)

editting a photo is not journalism. that's manipulation of the truth.

I have the ability to understand the intent of that particular manipulation.

And what was it, again? I've edited hundreds of photos, and I just can't see what apparently is obvious to you. I mean, it's not like he put a parrot on the guy's shoulder and added an eyepatch. ...

heh

sorry, you don't understand the term "photoediting" in journalism.

It means choosing the correct photo and cropping it. It doesn't mean manipulating the photo.

nice try, though.

tell you what, I'll try not to act like an arrogant expert on architecture, and you stay the heck away from trying to act like an arrogant expert on photojournalism...ok?

LOL!

exactly my point... Walski of the LA times manipulated the photo, that's wrong and it's not journalism.

did i use the wrong term in photojournalism lingo? pardon me, most people would know what i mean.

Wow. Ladies and gentlemen, we've got a mind-reader in the house.

All photographs are edited in one way or another. Hell, choosing which picture to publish is an act of editing, hence the job title editor

the altered photo looks like he's telling the civilian to stay back and is about to point his gun at him.

i've shown the photos to a bunch of people in my office.. it's clear us all that there was some political motivation in that alteration

riiight, and when a girl says "no" she means "yes" too right?

i think this debate would be better served by not getting fussy over semantics.

Thats the first thing i saw too. Definite political motivation in here. It makes hte soldier look like he is some kind of savior to the people. like "please stay down, its gonna be ok, im here"

I would gather there was some political motivation in there

Totally agree. If the people who are so keen to read a political motivation into this would actually have worked in the business they'd realise that this, in all probability, is simply a bad misjudgment by the photographer.

Well, again- I see your interpretation and I think it is perfectly valid. But. I do think there are so many other reasons why he may have done it. I don't see it as clearly politically motivated. We don't know anything about the guy, you know?

I guess you see what you want to see. If it suits you to believe that the LA Times is not only trying to make you believe that, but is also doing a really bad job of it, and then also chooses to fire the guy for doing it, thus revealing the entire thing to the world when they probably could have just gotten by without admitting it, then go ahead. But I'd have to say that you have a rich fantasy life.

I was referring to this statement of yours:



My objection is not to you stating your opinion. my objection is to palming yourself off as an expert who KNOWS the motivation of someone he doesn't know based on your false expertise.

capiche?

But are you sure you can make an impatial judgement call on it? I mean, what with your fairly obvious battle against "liberals" and all. You see here what you want to see. What you want to see is what supports your agenda. And yeah, I took a little trip to your site- you DEFINITELY have an agenda. Far from an impartial observer, you are.

Huh? What are you talking about? Look, when you work on the content of your college radio show you're making editorial decisions. In your case, based on your personal political affiliations.
This guy made a mistake. I can see why he did it, he was going for the dramatic picture. While this is standard procedure in the world of advertising it was the wrong choice to make for a press photographer. But it still doesn't mean that it was politically motivated. I also find it quite amusing that Zim and you both think that it is (politically motivated) yet read the picture totally differently.

[tangent]

I find it funny that the people on the "obvious politically motivated action" side are predictable based on comments in other threads.

Like-wise, the "no it isn't" group are also pretty predictable.

Not passing judgement, just making an observation about the consistency of people's personalities.

I find that consistency oddly comforting and somewhat disturbing.
[/tangent]