Reuters Beirut photos being doctored?

Marcel

Marcel

Kim Jong Bod
Admin
Messages
29,408
Name
Marcel
Edit My Images
Yes
How silly. :thinking:

Blinkin odd though don't you think, a very successful photographer known around the world, doctors a shot so obviously and no ones going to notice….seems a little crazy…perhaps he’s on crack or something. ;)

Gives me the impression that this isn't the first time either. Makes me wonder how many of the shots we see in the papers are edited for effect. :thinking:
 
Editing shots in any reportage/documentary role is a big Nono and guaranteed to get you the sack. Whatever possessed this guy I don't know - that's one of the worst cloning jobs I've ever seen. :thinking:
 
Best sack the entire BBC, CNN, Fox, ITN, Sky and many, many, many others for doing the same thing (over-inflating news stories)

Ok so this guy was caught obviously doctoring an image. But is there any mainstream media that isn't government controlled / biased in some way?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias
 
lol. How on earth did he think he'd get away with that!

The only news I trust is the bbc world service, probably the most impartial media coverage of anything. Everything else is just media spin, sensationalism (itv=worst culprits) and the result of the fact that we are apparently living in a Murdochracy!

Still, I have so much respect for photo-journalists working in the hot-spots around the world. Very dangerous and probably ptsd inducing work.
 
evilowl said:
Best sack the entire BBC, CNN, Fox, ITN, Sky and many, many, many others for doing the same thing (over-inflating news stories)

Ok so this guy was caught obviously doctoring an image. But is there any mainstream media that isn't government controlled / biased in some way?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias
Click to expand...

Aye...BUT

Reuters isn't media in that way, it's a news agency, and doesn't necessarily have the same level of editing controlled over it as sky cnn etc do.

Media such as BBC CNN Fox etc, turn to Reuters for the news, and it is they who edit the stories to publish, not Reuters. Reuters merely provides teh news as it happens, so to speak, rather than applying any editorial spin to 'sell papers'
 
Thats whats throwing me - its such a terrible effort at manipulating an image that its almost comical. I find it hard to believe for any reason that such a shot would have got through any vetting procedures.
 
As Warspite says, you'd think they'd have some sort of QC check, what the hell was the picture editor doing?

It's even worse than my cloning!
 
These guys have to get their shots out fast - I guess that explains the rush job, although it doesn't explain why he thought he had even a smidge of a chance of getting away with it!
 
Oh dear! I know this guy - he was in Afghanistan with us last month - seemed like a decent bloke (though I never saw any of his images). And why even bother with such a p**s-poor image to begin with?

Oh and by the way - hello from Helmand everyone. Lots more images on my bloggy-page (links elsewhere) including some from the Op yesterday where one of our guys was killed by a sniper less than 50ft from where we were standing filming the whole thing. I'd been mincing around with my body-armour off less than 15 minutes before that.
 
when we upgrade the forums to 3.6 Rob we can have an RSS feed to your little home from home...you can just point people to that then. Waiting for all the little bugs to get found first, be upgraded before the end of the month
 
Arkady said:
I'd been mincing around with my body-armour off less than 15 minutes before that.
Click to expand...
FFS, take care mate. Bothers me every time I hear about something like that in Afghanistan, the wife's cousin is out there just now.
 
interesting read!
 
I emailed the picture editor at Reuters and he replied that the senior staff were almost as concerned about the appalling job of cloning he'd done as the fact he'd altered the images in the first place...

Makes me laugh... No probs with me getting a job with them when I leave the army then *lol*
 
Hmm, but if it's so obvious (which it is) why did they use it?
 
The unprocessed pic:

beirutlz8.jpg
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ROFL @ Milou :LOL:
 
Arkady said:
Oh and by the way - hello from Helmand everyone. Lots more images on my bloggy-page (links elsewhere) including some from the Op yesterday where one of our guys was killed by a sniper less than 50ft from where we were standing filming the whole thing. I'd been mincing around with my body-armour off less than 15 minutes before that.
Click to expand...

Don't quite know how to respond to something like that. Its so far removed from our cushy little UK. Take care :)

It is stupid to think that he could get away with doctoring his image this way. Hell some guy was recently fired for basically changing the tones in the sunset for one paper. Nothing more than adjusting the white balance really.
 
SammyC said:
Hmm, but if it's so obvious (which it is) why did they use it?
Click to expand...

When you transmit an image to one of the Agencies, either by email or direct, it goes into a special account that strips away all of the message part of the email and drops the image stright into the picture editor's desktop. If the image is from a Staffer or long-time Stringer (or other trusted source, like me), only a cursory glance will be given to it to confirm File-Info etc before it's put 'On the Board' i.e. for sale to subscribers.
A couple of sub-Eds then do a more detailed check periodically throughout the day.
Bear in mind that hundreds of photographers will be sending in stuff, as much as 20-30 images each and keeping on top of it is a full-time task for the photo staff and desk officers, who are feilding requests for customers and chasing up any queries on the images themselves - many photographers are very lazy with detailed file-info captioning and this is one of he areas that gets me noticed as I rarely have to answer follow-up questions from the PicEds.
 
Thanks for that insight (y). I suppose if you consistently send good, trustworthy stuff, the checks on you get more and more lax.

But it seems, basically, Reuters got "lazy" (not enough staff, cost saving, too busy to check everything etc etc whatever you want to call it) and they got caught with their pants down?

I wonder if their international reputation has taken a battering because of this then? Because they've done a good job of deflecting all the blame onto Hajj.
That's not to say he's NOT totally to blame, but does anyone think Reuters should be equally scoffed at for missing Hajj taking the proverbial...
 
Yes.
And if the PicEds had been on the ball, they'd never have seen the light of day.
That way he (Adnan) would just have got a severe bolloxing instead of getting sacked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top