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.