I am glad you commented Paul - I was wondering whether you worked under the same sort of strictures. It must be tough to maintain two separate work flows. PJ work where what you take is what you live with, and then everything else where all of the digital tools for image enhancement can be brought to bear. If nothing else I guess that it disciplines you to try and get every shot right the first time…
stan On Jan 23, 2014, at 4:22 PM, Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> wrote: > No retouching under any circumstances is standard policy for most respectable > news organizations. I’m not allowed to alter photos for The New York Times > and had to sign a contract to that effect. There was a hot spot in the door > of the Hyundai Genesis pic I shot at the auto show that i would have liked to > have removed, but couldn’t. I later provided the same photo to Assouline, a > book publisher, for a Hyundai book I’m working on. Before sending it to them, > I did some retouching. News is reality. Advertising and promotions are make > believe. Two different worlds, two different photographic standards. > > {ai; > On Jan 23, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Brian Walters <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Quoting Igor Roshchin <[email protected]>: >> >>> I am not seeing what was the problem in what he did. >>> The modification he did did not change the purpose of the photo or >>> whatever the photo presents. >>> >>> It brings back the question of what is and what is not "manipulation" of >>> the photo. As "burning and dodging" is also image manipulation and >>> modification. >>> While I understand that one can defined the modification of an image >>> when the actual pixels are replaced/moved. >>> But what if he just darkened some portion of the photo with an object in >>> it so that the object is deep in a shadow, and hence cannot be seen on the >>> photo? That's not moving of the pixels, but just changing the levels >>> on a part of the photograph. >>> >>> I understand the problem when a person is removed from a group photo, >>> but that's totally different. >>> I think in this particular case, they are making a mountain out of a >>> molehill. >> >> >> >> That was my reaction as well. I understand that AP has strict guidelines >> but to completely ban him from working for them seems harsh. I would have >> thought some lesser penalty, such as banning him for six months or so, would >> have got the massage across. >> >> >> -- >> Cheers >> >> Brian >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Brian Walters >> Western Sydney Australia >> http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
