Spotty PJ photos

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...llery?index=24


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...llery?index=24




Perhaps they are just bugs flying by near the camera... (or pigs!)

Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that
image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a bit
funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that, and not
that it really matters in the context.

(O:


Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit of
image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a very
slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes, then...

It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing safeguards -
I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.

Mark Thomas wrote:
Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit of
image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a very
slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes, then...

It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing safeguards -
I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.

Starts with removing dust, ends up making the picture `better` via the
clone tool:

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/...Beirut& only=

Poldie wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote:
Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit
of image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a
very slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes,
then...

It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing safeguards
- I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.

Starts with removing dust, ends up making the picture `better` via the
clone tool:

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/...Beirut& only=


(O:

Yes, that example sprang to mind as I was typing my reply.. When I
first saw that image, I was simply dumbstruck. It looks like what
happens the very first time someone encounters Photoshop and the clone
tool - "ooh, look at what *that* does!".

It just defies belief that someone could even be bothered to save that
image, let alone submit it (accidentally or otherwise) for publication
so it would actually be seen by anyone else.., let alone that any
editor, even if blind drunk, would let it get through.

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 09:12:36 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote:
: Alan Browne wrote:
:
:
: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...llery?index=24
:
:
:
:
: Perhaps they are just bugs flying by near the camera... (or pigs!)
:
: Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that
: image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a bit
: funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that, and not
: that it really matters in the context.

I think the foreground figures are simply out of focus. These pictures aren't
so hot (pun not intended, but recognized), and the one Alan selected may be
the worst of the bunch. But the photographer(s) were in a danger area and
obviously in a hurry, so I'd cut them some slack. The amateurs at the
Minnesota bridge collapse a few months ago did a better job, but they had
neither danger nor time constraints to contend with.

Bob

Mark Thomas wrote:
Poldie wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote:
Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit
of image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a
very slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes,
then...

It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing
safeguards - I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.

Starts with removing dust, ends up making the picture `better` via the
clone tool:

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/...Beirut& only=


(O:

Yes, that example sprang to mind as I was typing my reply.. When I
first saw that image, I was simply dumbstruck. It looks like what
happens the very first time someone encounters Photoshop and the clone
tool - "ooh, look at what *that* does!".

It just defies belief that someone could even be bothered to save that
image, let alone submit it (accidentally or otherwise) for publication
so it would actually be seen by anyone else.., let alone that any
editor, even if blind drunk, would let it get through.

That is also puzzling me. It is as though someone has made a clumsy attempt
to discredit the photographer.

I am new here, most people would not know me or have seen any of my profile
pages, but as a journalist of thirty plus years standing, I do not know of
any photographer with sufficient credibility to be published who isn't
extremely well experienced in photo manipulation. There is definitely
something untoward about that image. I am not a photojournalist by the way,
I use a photographer if I know beforehand that I will need one, but have
always carried a camera "just in case". There have been a lot of "just in
case" occasions over the years. Until recently it has been a Nikon SLR,
with a couple of primes and a 28-200 fitted. Plus an MD-12.

I started with an FT and for the last couple of decades it has been a less
than top of the line FE. It has never let me down so I never upgraded it. I
have recently made the switch to digital and am not really happy so far, to
the extent where I am still trying various cameras hoping to find something
with which I feel more confident. I have just purchased a Lumix DMC-FZ50
after seeing the results that one of my daughters has been achieving. It is
a very versatile camera, fast to get into action, amazing lens for such a
low cost camera, and the image stabilisation is remarkable. I prefer it to
either the Rebel or the Olympus E500 that I have been using to date. But
then my requirements are probably very different to many amateur or
professional photographers. I am not looking for a beautiful shot, just a
clearly defined graphical illustration. I often need to get a clean shot
very quickly, often without knowing beforehand what focal length to expect.
You don't know if they are going to come out of that door a metre away, or
the one at the other end of the block. That sort of thing.

The Panasonic has its limitations, as do all digitals, particularly small
sensor digitals so I still carry the Nikon for those occasions when
something faster is required.

I am well versed in Photoshop, right from Adobe's very early days. For
years I would shoot film and then scan (drum scanner) it into a digital
image for final processing. I am not alone in that, while everyone did in
the early days, now that DSLRs have made such advances it is mostly just us
old dinosaurs who are still doing it. My favourite photographer also still
uses a mix of film and digital on assignments. But then he is around my age
and we have worked together for decades.

This is just a little bit of introduction as I think that I might stay with
some of these groups for a while, but back to the thread, my other concern
is that not only a supposedly experienced photographer produced such a
pathetic image, but that it passed all editing and proofreading, that it
was actually published. That is amazing. There has to be more to the story.



Regards

Tony

Mark Thomas wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...llery?index=24




Perhaps they are just bugs flying by near the camera... (or pigs!)

Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that
image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a bit
funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that, and not
that it really matters in the context.

(O:


Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit of
image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a very
slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes, then...

It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing safeguards -
I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.

Every major paper and news service has a standard published and you can
find them online if you dig around. For anything newsworthy
manipulation is verbotten and there have been cases of PJ's fired for it
(as discussed rpe35mm some time ago). OTOH, digitally removing spots
would be allowed.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 09:12:36 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote:
: Alan Browne wrote:
:
:
: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...llery?index=24
:
:
:
:
: Perhaps they are just bugs flying by near the camera... (or pigs!)
:
: Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that
: image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a bit
: funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that, and not
: that it really matters in the context.

I think the foreground figures are simply out of focus. These pictures aren't
so hot (pun not intended, but recognized), and the one Alan selected may be
the worst of the bunch. But the photographer(s) were in a danger area and
obviously in a hurry, so I'd cut them some slack. The amateurs at the
Minnesota bridge collapse a few months ago did a better job, but they had
neither danger nor time constraints to contend with.


I didn't select that to denigrate anyone, least of all the PJ in question.

You can imaging the guy in windy, dusty, smoky conditions and changing
lenses. He is bound to get spots when he shoots high DOF.

In most of the photos, the same spots would not even show as they would
be lost in the clutter of the non-sky BG.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Vagabond wrote:

That is also puzzling me. It is as though someone has made a clumsy
attempt to discredit the photographer.


See my other reply to Robert Coe. That was certainly not the intent.
And as a self declared "newbie" here you should not even make such
hedged declarations.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Vagabond wrote:


concern is that not only a supposedly experienced photographer produced
such a pathetic image, but that it passed all editing and proofreading,
that it was actually published. That is amazing. There has to be more to
the story.

Sheesh! The fires in California at Big Sure, near Santa Barbra and
Modesta are fast moving news. The photos in the series in the LA Times
are not "print" selected for the paper runs but to present a series of
photos outlining the story for web browsing. Most newspapers do similar
things with important events. The story is more important than specific
weaknesses of various photos.

As it is, the photo I originally indexed is not the one currently
indexed. I meant to draw attention to the obvious dust/smoke on the
camera sensor.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.