

AP Confirms Photographer Manipulated His Own Shadow - bproper
http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_071111a.html

======
tomkarlo
The most important product of AP (and most serious news organizations) is
credibility. Something like this is a cancer to their brand that they have to
cut out in the most absolute terms possible. I don't think there was any
malice by the photographer but anyone working for a large news organization
should be aware how sensitive they are to this kind of thing - if a reporter
made up a source or quotation, I'd expect a similar response.

~~~
someone13
My thoughts exactly. The photographer probably thought he was doing this
innocently, but even a small manipulation like this can seriously change what
a picture means. There's a really good example of this somewhere online
showing how the meaning of a photo can be changed by cropping the right and
left sides of a picture involving a soldier. Sadly, I can't seem to find it.
So, here's a couple of other examples:

[http://familybible.org/israel/conflict/PeacefulTerrorists.ht...](http://familybible.org/israel/conflict/PeacefulTerrorists.htm)

[http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photogra...](http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/07/unethical-
cropping.html)

AP is absolutely correct to take such draconian measures - they need to be
credible.

EDIT: Found it! See here: <http://www.rhetorik.ch/Bildmanipulation/soldat.jpg>

~~~
m0nastic
The photographer was a freelancer, so it's possible that he wasn't familiar
with the AP's guidelines.

That said, not manipulating images is the first thing that gets drilled into
you as a photojournalist (either in school, or when you start doing
assignments), so it's pretty unusual for someone to not realize the
importance.

A lot of photo agencies require submission of the RAW files specifically to
combat this sort of thing.

------
cwe
A gallery w/ the offending image:
[http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/sport/local-football-
in-a...](http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/sport/local-football-in-
argentina-20110706-1h1o3.html)

~~~
andrewcooke
is it 2? if so, it's strangely crude.

~~~
gus_massa
Here says that it is the #2 photo. And they have a version with less cropping,
where it is possible to see the cloned dust.

[http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/138728/ap-
drops...](http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/138728/ap-drops-
freelance-photographer-who-photoshopped-his-shadow-out-of-image/)

------
bartonfink
Why wouldn't removing your own shadow from the shot fall under the stated
provision that "minor adjustments in Photoshop are acceptable?" The AP's
policy clearly states that adjustments are allowed as long as they attempt to
"restore the authentic nature of the photograph". Removing your shadow from an
unimportant area of the picture seems to fall under that caveat.

I'm not saying the AP are wrong here, but the photographer's actions seem
consistent with stated policy, and as such banning him for life seems like
quite an overreaction. Can anyone who knows more about photography explain why
this isn't the case?

~~~
mashmac2
Well, read on in that provision:

"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 previously 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. The removal of ³red eye² from
photographs is not permissible."

It's pretty clear that he can't modify the background of the image, or really
do anything he couldn't do in a darkroom.

~~~
wccrawford
If removing "red eye" isn't permissible, removing a whole shadow is definitely
now.

I think it's harsh that they banned him for life, but there have been some bad
incidents lately and I'm sure they are setting an example.

On one hand, I'm happy they are serious about journalism and integrity. But on
the other, I think it's an unusually harsh punishment.

~~~
Steko
The absurd thing is that as worded it appears cameras that remove red eye
automatically might technically violate their policy.

~~~
cbr
I'm not sure many professional photographers are using cameras that do that.

------
aero142
The choice of what to, and what not to photograph, what to include inside the
frame and what to leave out, can do more to change a photo's interpretation
than this edit. This policy does more to give the appearance of credibility
than it does to actually ensure credibility.

With that said, I understand why the AP did it.

