Press photography - red-eye removal?

Not my field, but I suspect it has as much to do with time constraints as any ethical consideration.

Guardian said:
Prince Andrew, Duke of York leaves the headquarters of Crossrail in Canary Wharf, London, on Monday. Photograph: Wpa Pool/Getty Images
Click to expand...

The Metro used the same photo, but not cropped in the same way

http://pictures.metro.co.uk/london/...ational-Trade-and-Investment-Visits-Crossrail

The BBC used a different Getty photo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12665981

and there's always the possibility that there's a subtle subtext in The Guardian's choice of photo... :D
 
Hi. My guess it was wired straight from the guy's camera to the press desk, and they just used it. Doesn't look like the usual high standard from Getty. I'm sure the photographer would have corrected that had time been available. Looks almost amateur, done with a p&s.
 
given the story content - I think the picture is just right as it is :D
 
There may be another reason for the red eye, it depends on whether you believe David Icke or not ;)
 
I can't comment on the Guardian, but at the paper I work for, with the exception of magazine and feature work, there is no retouching at all anymore. All that happens for news pages is some colour balancing (all done automatically) to get the pictures 'press ready'. This essentially makes them look like they have been put through the wash.

As one of the few people in my department who still has a photoshop license I wouldn't let things like red eye go through but plenty others couldn't care less...
 
At my agency, we're not allowed to perform any image enhancement other than what used to be called 'normal darkroom practice' - levels, colour correction and crop if required - and that's it.

We are occasionally called upon to submit a sample of RAW images (or the original JPEGs if shot in that format) for comparison if the Picture Editor suspects something may have slipped through. Usually this is because of a complaint from a client, not because the pic-ed is a suspicious old b****r - he's got enough to worry about without wasting time chaecking up on all of us...

In any case it's a sacking offense if caught out and some have been. The chances of getting another job at another agency after that are slim.
 
jamesb84 said:
2. The photo is a WPA Pool shot. That's the Westminster Press Association.
Click to expand...

I think it stands for "Wire Press Association" (or at least it does when referenced in the Royal Wedding plans)
 
inkiboo said:
I think it stands for "Wire Press Association" (or at least it does when referenced in the Royal Wedding plans)
Click to expand...

Are you sure you haven't just misread the 'Name/PA Wire/Press Assocation Images' byline?
 
That image looks like it was shot with a p&s. On the paper I used to work for if a staff photographer couldn't make it to a shoot a reporter was sent with a p&s. Had that picture been taken with a pro camera with flash mounted on top there would not be red eye anyway.
 
Probably not that, probably just a quick shot grabbed as he was leaving, no time for posing etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top