Photo editor discovers altered golf photo

I have no knowledge of editorial "rules", why would this be such a bad thing? Misrepresenting the actual event?
 
I have always been told altering an image to that extent for live news/sports is a big no no
 
Rovers_Andy said:
I have always been told altering an image to that extent for live news/sports is a big no no
Click to expand...

Definitely...Getty/AFP and Reuters (I can't comment for any other agencies) have very strict guidelines about what constitutes "acceptable practice" and cloning the guy out is NOT one of them.

I can only Crop, Alter colour/contrast or brightness. That's pretty much it...I think you can "flip" the image, but with all the logo's and sponsor info, there's not much point as it'll all end up backwards.

However, newspapers can do what they like (within reason). I cropped one of mine a little too close for what the paper wanted use it for, so they cloned another inch onto the picture and printed it...it was only crowd background, but I suspect that's as far as a publication would go.

I know that the Football DataCo have strict guidelines on whats acceptable as well...for example, you can't clone a different team shirt onto a player in anticipation of him signing for another team.
 
That's pretty harsh... It looks like the guy went the extra mile to get him sacked, is there any history between them?
 
Did they sack anyone? They killed the photo but not the photographer I`m guessing. If they did sack I hope the guy taking the action can live with himself going this far for what, whilst breaching Getty rules and best parctice, is not really a mortal sin for such a standard pic.
 
jamesb84 said:
Definitely...Getty/AFP and Reuters (I can't comment for any other agencies) have very strict guidelines about what constitutes "acceptable practice" and cloning the guy out is NOT one of them.

I can only Crop, Alter colour/contrast or brightness. That's pretty much it...I think you can "flip" the image, but with all the logo's and sponsor info, there's not much point as it'll all end up backwards.

However, newspapers can do what they like (within reason). I cropped one of mine a little too close for what the paper wanted use it for, so they cloned another inch onto the picture and printed it...it was only crowd background, but I suspect that's as far as a publication would go.

I know that the Football DataCo have strict guidelines on whats acceptable as well...for example, you can't clone a different team shirt onto a player in anticipation of him signing for another team.
Click to expand...



I had the same happen to one of mine from the Leicester City Vs Cardiff Semi Final, they added a few inches to the top, i actually thought it was someone elses image until the agency called a few weeks after to tell me :lol:
 
aye getty over-reacted imho especially if he sent both over

seems a reasonably feasible explanation to me
 
alexkidd said:
aye getty over-reacted imho especially if he sent both over

seems a reasonably feasible explanation to me
Click to expand...

No they didnt. At all

They had to protect their reputation and credibility.


Adding a few inches of canvas to the top of a print is nothing like removing a person from the frame, THAT is misrepresenting the scene and a massive :nono: for any sports/news photographer
 
Rovers_Andy said:
No they didnt. At all

They had to protect their reputation and credibility.


Adding a few inches of canvas to the top of a print is nothing like removing a person from the frame, THAT is misrepresenting the scene and a massive :nono: for any sports/news photographer
Click to expand...

and you're the guardian of my opinions obviously, wind your neck in please
 
You gave your opinion stating Getty over reacted

I gave my opinion stating i felt Getty did the right think.

Why exactly would i need to wind my neck in?
 
I edit my pictures for use on my site to sell as prints.. I never edit any for editorial use. its considered a mortal sin really.. However papers will happily edit them themselves... add bleed as in andys case or if they want to crop tight they may move a ball or add a new one to a cropped picture.. I know editors who have a library of football pics just for that :)

If I sent a picture edited to a paper or agency I would not expect to ever work for them again ..its a big no-no ..
 
jamesb84 said:
Definitely...Getty/AFP and Reuters (I can't comment for any other agencies) have very strict guidelines about what constitutes "acceptable practice" and cloning the guy out is NOT one of them.

I can only Crop, Alter colour/contrast or brightness. That's pretty much it...I think you can "flip" the image, but with all the logo's and sponsor info, there's not much point as it'll all end up backwards.

However, newspapers can do what they like (within reason). I cropped one of mine a little too close for what the paper wanted use it for, so they cloned another inch onto the picture and printed it...it was only crowd background, but I suspect that's as far as a publication would go.

I know that the Football DataCo have strict guidelines on whats acceptable as well...for example, you can't clone a different team shirt onto a player in anticipation of him signing for another team.
Click to expand...

AP says:

"The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable.

Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction (analogous to the burning and dodging often used in darkroom processing of images) and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning."
 
scottcampbell said:
AP says:

"The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable.

Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction (analogous to the burning and dodging often used in darkroom processing of images) and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning."
Click to expand...


I think this rather famous incident had a lot to do with the tightening of the rules....

ojcovers.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top