AP reacts to alteration of photo

I can understand that AP needs to be able to state that every shot it uses or offers for sale is unaltered and exactly as taken.
It is also probably true that some are cropped and altered by the end user, to fit their purposes.
It is tough on this photographer to be singled out, but I am sure he knew the potential outcome of his actions.
Every one must be able to trust news photographs.
 
This is non negotiable when it comes to agency photographers. Silly boy.
 
If the policy is not to alter then that is exactly what must do, it's amazing that all he did was take out a camera but it broke the rules :(

I often wonder how stories or situations like this arise, is it the photographer admitting he/she has done it or is it someone else reporting them, as this is not the first time stuff like this had happened
 
It's not amazing at all; you have to trust your sources when it comes to editorial photography and manipulating in this way is a total no-no.
 
MWHCVT said:
If the policy is not to alter then that is exactly what must do, it's amazing that all he did was take out a camera but it broke the rules :(

I often wonder how stories or situations like this arise, is it the photographer admitting he/she has done it or is it someone else reporting them, as this is not the first time stuff like this had happened
Click to expand...

you can actually see why though just by this photo alone... look at that photo as originally presented, it looks like someone ducking to avoid gunfire or being seen - put the camera back in and whilst it may still be the same scenario, someone ducking to avoid gunfire, what it looks like is someone bending over to look at the camera.... and perception is everything, hence the photos have to be unaltered regardless of situation, it is then down to the agency and publishers if they use it or not for any given report, editorial, etc. Add edits like that and doubts can be leveled at what was really happening at the time.
 
Last edited:
inkiboo said:
It's not amazing at all; you have to trust your sources when it comes to editorial photography and manipulating in this way is a total no-no.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear I'm not criticising AP here I'm fully behind what has happened here...as I've said my main question is how they even found out? More out of interest :lol:

Interestingly I've got a couple of photos with Getty and have sold one ;) that was very manipulated but then I didn't hide that fact :lol:

Yv said:
you can actually see why though just by this photo alone... look at that photo as originally presented, it looks like someone ducking to avoid gunfire or being seen - put the camera back in and whilst it may still be the same scenario, someone ducking to avoid gunfire, what it looks like is someone bending over to look at the camera.... and perception is everything, hence the photos have to be unaltered regardless of situation, it is then down to the agency and publishers if they use it or not for any given report, editorial, etc. Add edits like that and doubts can be leveled at what was really happening at the time.
Click to expand...

Oh indeed it does change the image :thumbs:
 
I assume the photos you have with Getty are not editorial? Or have the appropriate editor's note?
 
MWHCVT said:
.as I've said my main question is how they even found out?
Click to expand...


itt actually tells you in the article :)


Contreras told his editors recently that he had altered the image by "cloning" other pieces of the background and pasting them over the camera, before sending that image to the AP photo desk.
 
inkiboo said:
I assume the photos you have with Getty are not editorial? Or have the appropriate editor's note?
Click to expand...

It's probably not from your section it was a request via Flickr, but not it's certainly not editorial :) I'd love to know where it was used but have never managed to find anything all I know is it was via the New York office

KIPAX said:
itt actually tells you in the article :)


Contreras told his editors recently that he had altered the image by "cloning" other pieces of the background and pasting them over the camera, before sending that image to the AP photo desk.
Click to expand...

Ah thanks I missed that bit clearly
 
If you sent in a cropped version would they know unless you told them or is that frowned upon? Reading the dpreview quote from AP:

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...'
Click to expand...


It seems a bit of a mountain out of a molehill.
 
Laudrup said:
If you sent in a cropped version would they know unless you told them or is that frowned upon? Reading the dpreview quote from AP:


It seems a bit of a mountain out of a molehill.
Click to expand...

Dont forget photo from war zones can be used as propaganda tools by all sides,that maybe can send nations to war :(
 
So the morale is to keep the mouth shut. He clearly knew he was bending the rules but still decided to talk about it and got punished, and had example made of him

Personally i don't see much issue with getting rid of the camera. It does not infer by itself that the guy had a posed photoshoot - a wideangle view is probably more revealing in that respect. In fact if they had a proper photoshoot they would have moved the camera away. Rookie mistake. The two journalists could have been working together close by and in a hurry to shoot the guy as he was hiding. I.e. you could twist the story both ways.
 
The main concern is that if he altered one image, what's to say he didn't alter any in the past for his own benefit - this is why they then audited his previous work to confirm if it was all genuine, unfortunately although it's a shame to be laid off, he did break his contract - AP are staying neutral, if they were deemed to be editing images then that would show that they're not genuine with what is submitted etc. He'll find work elsewhere though ;)
 
daugirdas said:
Personally i don't see much issue with getting rid of the camera.
Click to expand...

You have to trust the integrity of your sources and be sure that the story you are telling is the truth; Photoshopping out something from a photo is not acceptable for a news photo.
 
daugirdas said:
So the morale is to keep the mouth shut. He clearly knew he was bending the rules but still decided to talk about it and got punished, and had example made of him

Personally i don't see much issue with getting rid of the camera. It does not infer by itself that the guy had a posed photoshoot - a wideangle view is probably more revealing in that respect. In fact if they had a proper photoshoot they would have moved the camera away. Rookie mistake. The two journalists could have been working together close by and in a hurry to shoot the guy as he was hiding. I.e. you could twist the story both ways.
Click to expand...

Don't forget confession are often made when one feels they our about to be caught out, hoping for a more lenient out come.

As for your 2nd part, the rules are simple if you feel you can't keep to them, maybe not area of photography for you :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top