On Jan 13, 2006, at 6:59 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
True, there are no absolutes. But for news photography, alterations should be restricted to those that make the photo reproduce well: curves adjustments, BW conversion, etc. No cloning should be allowed and no modification of details to produce a different look. In this case, the eyes were obviously altered to change the look of the photo. I can't say for certain, but I believe the Times wold rule out perspective control as well. But they probably wouldn't buy a photo that was so distorted that it failed to communicate correctly. As far as I'm concerned, any alterations the photographer wishes to make are okay for fine art photography. For commercial photography, any alterations the lawyers will allow (which do not include drastically changing the appearance of a product) are okay. But the news is the news. It must strive to be accurate.
Looks to me like an overall sharpening and increase in contrast was made, and this caused the demon eyes.
Bob
