RE: [SPAM] Re: Truth in Phoyo Journalism (?)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



 
 
Reuters has strict guidelines RE photo editing.  I'm not sure where to find them though.
 
Another photo that slipped by close scrutiny in Cleveland:  http://www.panoramacamera.us/GWPUCK.jpg
 
AZ
 

Build a 120/35mm Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
Now an E-book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SPAM] Re: Truth in Phoyo Journalism  (?)
From: Tim Corio <tcorio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, April 16, 2007 10:28 am
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

The article describes the change made to the photo as the removal of
"the legs of someone standing in the background".  This would not appear
to affect the journalistic content of the image.  I assume that burning
and dodging of photos have been used for decades to give more weight to
details that would otherwise not appear important in the final print.

The Wall Street Journal until recently used line drawings almost
exclusivly for its images.  The line art would be far more suseptable to
substantial manipulation than a photo.  On the other hand, it would be
more clear to the reader that the line art carries the weight of the
artist's biases.

Are there guidelines to help a photographer know what manipulations of a
photograph are acceptable?

Tim Corio

On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 09:50 -0400, Bob wrote:
> This was in this morning's (16 April 2007) issue of The Cleveland
Plain 
> Dealer,  one of the area's daily newspapers. I found it interesting.
> 
> http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/117672094448040.xml&coll=2
> 
> Bob
> 


[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux