I dood it now...

[craig]

The story was Blah Blah's 20th anniversary of Blah Blah Daycare. Not a hard story but one that needed to be shot none the less. I submitted the classic "group of kids surrounding the teacher" and the craig shot of a more tender moment. Of course the editor picked the craig shot. Problem is that I cloned out one of the brat kids tongue. Looked like he was liking one of the key ladies in the frame's crotch.

The shot ran and everyone was happy and no one knows. Question is was the cloning justified. I feel that it was to save "the shot". Not like I was adding a basketball or smoke clouds to enhance the photo.

I know I am a hypocrite. I have been battling the deal for sure. From now on I refuse to clone anything out of the image. What are your thoughts on the situation.

Love & Bass

 

[Puscas]

I'm not a fan of cloning in situations like this, and it's hard to comment without the pic, but was it really that bad? From what you're describing, I don't think it needed cloning. Maybe it was your photographer's eye that was too critical?





pascal

 

[craig]

Thanks man! I will have to post the pic. Literally looked like he was liking her crotch. After the edit he looks like he is biting her crotch. Some how that seemed more acceptable to me.

Love & Bass

 

[Puscas]

Some how that seemed more acceptable to me.

Love & Bass

:lmao::lmao:






pascal

 

[TBaraki]

Some how that seemed more acceptable to me.

Love & Bass

The media and mass audience do seem to be more accepting of violence than affection.

 

[DSLR noob]

Wow uh...... that sounds nice....... and disturbing.

Ansel Adams once said "There are no rules to photography, there are only good photos." Technically, any post processing, even rendering, isn't soemthing to be ashamed of as long as people like th end result.

 

[Puscas]

as long as people like th end result.

ehmm, I think there's more to it. Maybe this is not the best example, but he's taking pictures for a newspaper (I guess?). Sure people would like it (well the male audience) if he were to clone some naked women in there, but he has to stay as close to the real events as possible, no? I think that's what he's asking, but correct me if I'm wrong.



pascal

 

[DSLR noob]

Well I meant like the end result as a photograph. A nude is not liking the end result, it is liking the subject. I'm talking overall art.

 

[Puscas]

Well I meant like the end result as a photograph. A nude is not liking the end result, it is liking the subject. I'm talking overall art.

I know. Sorry, I was trying to illustrate that there are certain boundaries for these kind of pictures. He cannot alter a picture endlessly just to please the audience (because he has to depict the 'real world'). So I think your remark 'as long as people like the end result' cannot be his (only) choice.

In the meantime, I'm getting curious.....where are those pics...







pascal

 

[tr0gd0o0r]

**note** this post is addressing photography as it relates to journalism**

The problem this type of cloning presents lies in the intent of the photographer. If the goal is to present news, then trustworthiness is paramount. You can not present anything meaningful if people do not trust you. While it is easy and seemingly meaningless to edit out small things that get in the way, it compromises the photographer's integrity when attempting to relay the events accurately.

When hard news stories do surface, it is absolutely necessary that the public has no doubts as to your manipulation of an image. Photographers have battled this ever since the technology has allowed the ability to not set up scenes. The easier it becomes to manipulate images to the extent that content is seriously changed, the more vigilant photojournalists must be in banning such techniques from the photoshop arsenal.

 

[JIP]

If this was a hard news journalisim photo and the cloning changed the whole photo to mean an entirely different thing I would say this is a problem but all you are doing is shooting a nice group photo. In a situation like this it seems more like a portrait to me and you are amking it a better image just like improving someones skin tone in a portrait or removing a blemish on their face etc.. I can see taking the high road when it comes to journalisim and conveying an important story but even if this was for a newspaper (and I am assuming this was) it is just a fluff (no offense meant) piece about a teacher.

 

[Puscas]

but even if this was for a newspaper (and I am assuming this was) it is just a fluff (no offense meant) piece about a teacher.

I see what you mean, this isn't a world changing event. But I think the newspaper would disagree. If you don't mind changing pics like this, why would the reader/subscriber believe you would mind changing any other pic in your publication? I think that's important to them.


But again, I want to know what we are talking about. Show us them licking kids...:greenpbl:





pascal

 

[RMThompson]

Yes lets see this crazy photo... I WANT A BEFORE AND AFTER!!!

 

[craig]

So here is the photo. Copyright JACKSON HOLE NEWS AND GUIDE/CRAIG BLANK

 

[Puscas]

Hahahahaha...that ís an awkward spot.... Still, this is a child, would anybody really think that he has his tongue out to ....you know. To be perfectly honest (but I'm not in that kind of a position, so it's easy to say) I wouldn't have cloned it and maybe submit a different pic. Or was that not possible?




pascal