You all know I use Photoshop extensively on this blog. When it comes to newspaper photos I am very reluctant to accept Photoshop because there is a fine line of news being eclipsed by Photoshop tampering. I have written to the Herald about Photoshop usage in fluff stories but something bothered me about this NEWS photo on the front page. Newspapers should operate at the highest standards.I was looking at Karen Cartwright pointing to a burned out house in Liberty City, thinking hey, that reminds me of Jackie Kennedy’s pointing during her famous tour of the Whitehouse. So, yes we know this particular photo is posed by the pointing but it does not appear to be staged (I don't think they rearranged garbage).
When I looked again I noticed a halo that shouldn’t be there around her head if one were to examine the light. Anyway, I might be totally wrong and I am nit-picking big-time here but a word of caution to newspapers: When you use Photoshop it should be called a Photo-Illustration. That is photo integrity in my book. The halo of light could subliminally change our reaction to the photo. If it is REALLY there in the photo Herald, never mind! Just note that we photoshoppers have an EYE on you!
Old Grover and Harry Emilio Gottlieb — and other Photoshop aficionados — what are your thoughts? (Hit on images to enlarge)
17 comments:
I also do a lot of photoshopping, you can see my "christmas card" on Camera Ephemera for a sample.
My opinion: no foul. It seems likely to me that the woman's features were not clear in the raw photograph, and the photo was sloppily edited to correct for poor exposure.
The light source is behind the building; the entire scene is backlit. With her dark complexion, the presence of bright sky, and an expanse of light colored wall, her facial features were very likely obscured in shadow. First, the entire picture had its contrast and brightness adjusted, and that is when the "halo" on the arm was introduced. When the basic adjustment failed to clarify her face, an oval tool was used to select her head, and further adjustments were made.
When I do this work, I copy areas onto another layer and remove the halo.
C.L. Jahn
Look at the bottom of her arm it is in shadow. The forehead and upper cheeks are in highlight and the area below chin is in shadow. The eaves are in shadow. The side of the the house on the right side of photo is in shadow. That is how I determined my light source. I don't think it is behind the building...the light source.
Does the photo make you think, extensive editing? From your description it seems to. How do you feel about that? By the way, look at her left arm it looks pretty odd and highly shadowed.
The photo in the Miami Herald does indeed look like it has been altered for a particular effect.
I don’t believe that photo journalists should alter their photographs at all.
But if they are altered as a composition to help tell a story, then they owe the public the right to know the truth by indicating them as so.
There is no need for a humorist or satirist to have a disclaimer and indicate an image is made up, since it is obvious that it is a satirical composition with its graphics and text.
Harry Emilio Gottlieb
Went to your blog. Stunning photos. I am linking to this blog on our blog. You might remove defunct Stuck on the Palmetto and add us!
Where should the line be drawn CL?
By the way, I totally ignored the story because I have the answer already: Will Overtown get its piece of the pie?
No
because there are too many layers of bad people between the money and the citizens. you go Karen! Try to keep their hands out of pie. Good luck.
I can't read the story. It makes me sick but I think I am right.
Look at the bottom of her arm it is in shadow. The forehead and upper cheeks are in highlight and the area below chin is in shadow. The eaves are in shadow. The side of the the house on the right side of photo is in shadow. That is how I determined my light source. I don't think it is behind the building...the light source.
There's a lot of glare; it's a hazy day, judging by the sky. I've taken lots of similar pictures. The sun is definitely on the opposite side of the building, but more to the left of the center axis of the of the picture.
Increasing CONTRAST enhances highlights and shadow, and that's what you're seeing along her arm. He face and head were adjusted separately, or more likely, went through additional processing; more contrast adjustment, and sharpening caused the "pixelation."
Does the photo make you think, extensive editing? From your description it seems to. How do you feel about that?
I suppose that depends on how you define "editing." i don't think the woman was pasted in; I think you are viewing the shot as it was composed. I would label it "color corrected," but it's a poor job of it. Color correction and contrast adjustment should be invisible to the viewer.
While a sloppy picture, I don't have a problem with the kind of work done on it.
By the way, look at her left arm it looks pretty odd and highly shadowed.
Again, I don't see anything there beyond contrast adjustment.
thanks, enjoyed the exchange. You are right, I shouldn't have thought about this, but the bad editing makes it a target.
BTW, you are now linked from both Camera Ephemera and Man Or Maniac. I don't know how you were missed earlier; you've been one of my daily reads for quite a while now.
P.S.I still don't think it is backlit.
"Backlit" might be too strong a term; the sun is high in the sky, after all. But it's over the far side of the building; look carefully at the leaves of the trees to the far left; the clusters are brighter to the right and darker under and to the left.
The sky is lightly overcast, and that causes refraction and gives the impression that the light is "everywhere."
This photo looks like my first dozen attempts to fix the problem I describe here.
Of course, you can always ask Ms. Cartwright if they altered the photo's content.
I don't think they should be messing with the photos. Take a good shot to start with... If you are using a digital camera, you should be able to see the results instantly... and retake it or rearrange it on site. Unless you are doing an 'art" piece and special effects are needed, photos should be as they are.
I have somewhat mixed feelings about this particular example of photo manipulation. Back in the days before both computers and color photos were staples of newspaper production, it was a commonly accepted practice to "halo" a figure on a (chemically developed black & white) photo simply to provide better contrast between the item of interest and the surrounding material. Such haloing was accomplished by "retouching", i.e., hand painting a thin white or grey line around the object. Absent this artifact, the person (other object) could easily get "lost". To the limited extent that the casual reader noticed or cared about the device, it was nevertheless an accepted practice to achieve legibility.
These days, what with digital techniques for (after the fact) contrast enhancement, such methods have gone the way of manual typewriters and hot lead typesetting. What makes the present example notable is simply the crudeness with which the haloing has been applied. Any digital retouched worth his salt would have rendered the effect to be un-noticeable; in my view the sloppiness in this example is about as objectionable as a misspelling or other typo. A screw-up at some level for sure, but not one that causes me any particular angst.
In short, I don't have a problem with photo manipulation intended simply to improve readability. (Switching heads, adding and subtracting people or otherwise altering the context of a photo is obviously another story.) The newspaper's aim should be to convey the image as best it can on cheap newsprint, not to adhere to some standards of technical purity in attaining that goal.
Finally, as you and I well know, Photoshop ain't the only way to skin the image manipulation cat even though it is the 800 pound gorilla in the biz. Sort of like making Xerox copies on a Canon copier.
Yes, I used Photoshop in the same context as we use Kleenex to refer to a tissue or Google to identify a search engine. We know there are many brands of tissues and many search engines, and more than one photo editing program...I just refer to the ones that I happen to use.
This may be a result of sloppy editing, but I don't see anything unethical about it unless we can prove that they placed the woman there when she wasn't really there, which I doubt is the case because then they would have made it a much more dramatic photo like El Nuevo Herald did a while back by adding prostitutes in front of a Havana police station.
Someone should carpet bomb all of Overtown and finish the destruction started by the Overtown residents who burnt out their neighbors and local shop owners.
Finish the job,
The destruction of Overtown was started by the construction of I-95 that divided the community in half.
Desegregation also played a role because it allowed successful black residents and business owners to move out of Overtown, leaving it mostly a poor neighborhood.
Post a Comment