Michael, the story you tell is important because don’t simply condemn these practices, you help to expose the conditions upon which they exist. This has been super useful. 👍🏼
This is an excellent post and much needed. Thanks for opening the eyes of people who tend to believe everything they see in photo journalism! Well done Michael.
The decision by Reuters to only accept JPEG files is a curious one. I can manipulate a RAW file in Photoshop then create a jpeg from that and submit the photo. Surely Reuters should be requesting exactly the opposite by only accepting RAW files! Raw files are the only way to know for sure that what you have is a completely unedited straight out of camera image. It's like the difference between submitting a physical print which might have been manipulated in the dark room and or giving them the actual film negative. RAWs and film negatives don't lie 😉
Was going to say exactly this. It's a really weird move. Like, "we don't want edited photographs, so give us ONLY the ones that can be edited easily, and NOT the ones that can't be edited easily, or at all". It's the opposite of what they should do. There's, like, a gazillion ways to edit a jpg and re-export it via Luminar/Lightroom so it appears nothing really was done to it. As far as I know, there's really no way to edit the RAW data in a RAW file, only settings on top of it.
@@AnnaVahtera my thoughts were quite similar. They should have to send the final jpg(out of cam or graded) and the raw as a proof. Where's the problem?
People who own cameras have little if any ethics. When I started as a newspaper photographer 35 years ago, my first editor said he would fire anyone who altered or falsely reported news. Those ethics are still my cornerstone today, even in retirement.
True. I started in the profession a bit before you, in 1980, and I had the same experience. As you recall, some of the remaining old-school cigar-chomping guys were at the very end of their careers and out the door went certain practices like moving a child’s charred doll closer to the camera at the scene of a house fire. News Photographer, the monthly magazine of the National Press Photographers Association, was the Bible with the NPPA's code of ethics.
I really love these series of videos you're doing lately. I'm a customer of yours (Canon t6i instructional video). I'm really a film shooter, though. I don't use photoshop... don't even own the program. I did, however, run one of my photos (digital) through a blue filter because I didn't like the ugly gray water of the bay, but I've never passed it off as original. I'll never be a famous or well known photographer, but that's ok. I have fun doing my thing. I did, however, amaze myself after I picked up the hobby as a novice and moved up to amateur quite quickly. I often wonder if I'll ever be able to out do myself from when the passion really burned inside me. My job gets in the way of my heart's desire, but the lousy job is what afforded me the means to acquire the gear. I'll be starting film development soon; I purchased a Lab-Box for 35mm and 120. As soon as I start my new job and get settled in I'm going to develop my first roll of film.
Very interesting topic. You are establishing yourself as a truly original content creator. No more repetitive equipment propaganda targeting subscribers with GAS. Finally, I don't have to feel guilty about watching youtube. Mahalos!
Thank you so much for noticing, this is what I am trying to do. While I know gear videos will have many more views, likes, and subscriptions, I am more interested in pursuing meaningful content that stimulates thought. I enjoy these much more.
I agree totally with your stance presented here Michael. I didn't realise that manipulation was so rife in photo journalism, I try not to be too cynical :)) Thank's.
This really undermines the "truth" element of photography. We all know that a picture is not reality. At the same time we rely on images to represent som kind of truth. I find that duality troubling at times.
Oh man! That airplane shot at @05:08 is definitely something that is all too common in social media. I see that type of shot (upward shot of an airplane perfectly in place between some kind of landmarks) it a lot. Definitely too good to be true. A local new station (@abc7la) shared a photo or an airplane perfectly lined up between palm trees during a sunset. While everyone commented about how amazing the shot was and how it was a "1 in a million" shot, I actually called out the photographer for photoshopping the plane since the plane was lit up with sunlight coming from the side while the sunset was actually happening in a completely different direction. Lol
Very interesting video, raising essential reflexions about truth and the representation of it. I'm left with so many questions, and I love that! Thanks a lot for this food for though.
This is the one thing that I can't stand, people cheating, stealing others work and defrauding the public with their "work". I personally am not a Photo journalist, and my photos are mostly for art. I may edit very very little. Or I may use a preset in Lightroom if the photo calls for it. I have a cousin that would take Photos offline, even if the Site said "these are free to use" for editing practicing only. She would change the photo enough and call it her own and watermark it and try to sell it. Then claims to be the worlds best photographer when she has only been taking pictures for about 5-6 years. She tells me my work is Crap and I have been shooting photography for 16 years. When she gets called out she plays the victim and claims bullying. It's only been recently that I have taken it up from a hobby to a career because many people wanted to buy my work. I personally didn't think I was that Good till someone from KTVI in St. Louis and a couple photographers from The Post Dispatch asked why I was not doing this professionally. I don't like to use other people's work. The only exception that I have is for my actual job as a Vacation Consultant for Expedia Cruises that Gave me permission to use their content to do Videos and create ads for bookings for the different Cruise lines. Other than that my work is my own. This Video was very informative in case I would like to get into Photo journalism. I know what Not to do. But, I think I will stick with Travel, landscape, and wildlife photography for now.
I was waiting to see you to include some youtube 'personalities' who were caught showing the youtube audience someone else's photos and claiming them to be their own.
~~~ I’m just getting into photography and I look at people’s photos on Instagram, FB and some others and even to me I see pictures that have been Photoshopped so many times. There is one in particular that shows an air plane that sits in the middle of a opening in this forest. I’ve seen boats and so many things are being used with this open area in the middle of the forest.
I don't object to the edits of the Kent State picture, the National Geographic cover with the camels & pyramids, or many of the other ones. Sure there were changes to enhance their visual impact, but nothing of any significance was altered to change the essential elements of the story being told. The editors could have chosen to use illustrations, which certainly would have excluded imperfections, or items irrelevant to the story.
Interesting. Good video. I thought it would be easier to manipulate jpegs than raw files. Especially since most filters, profiles computational settings on cameras will usually only apply to jpegs. I just found it odd they only accept jpeg.
I guess I still have a lot to learn. I cannot see how Reuters could tell if a jpeg is straight from the camera or was created, from a RAW file, after being manipulated.
I agree about presenting what really was shot for photojournalism. I'm not a big fan of doing tons of post-processing for anything because I feel you become a computer graphic artist and not a photographer at that point. What happened to get the shot right in camera first? Just my small worthless opinion. Great info and thanks for the video.
I think it is funny the double standards print and tv media hold photojournalist to. The scrutiny they uphold photos to, but they don't hold the verbal and literary "photoshopping" they do to sway and manipulate public opinions to the same level of scrutiny. Seems every day I watch the news, the news anchors will always have an editorial comment or facial gesture on camera to show how they feel about an issue instead of presenting the facts.
People often confuse the concepts of objectivity and factuality. It is ok (and inevitable) for journalists and photojournalists to express their feelings or opinions about facts, as long as the facts are honestly presented in whole, truthfully. The very act of publishing a picture or writing an article is not an objective one. Right there, one decides what one feels important to share.
It doesn't make sence that Reuters will not accept RAW files but puts their trust in JPG files. We all know a RAW file cannot be manipulated but a JPG can.
Is bracketing / multiple exposure / stacking considered cheating? Before I learned photography I used to think astrophotography was what you see in real life and when I went to these remote places to star gaze I realized that my eyes couldn't see the same thing these astrophotographers posted
imo, for astrophotography I think it's not considering a cheating. Because what were you taken is a fact. Even though our eyes can't see them, it doesn't mean the truth isn't there. It doesn't mean they're not real at a time. They're still there, no matter we can sense them or not. Because the title discussing about photojournalism, which is means giving a fraction of *raw fact*, it would be different from photography which including art and beauty in making. *I'm sorry with my language, still working with it
It's strange that Reuters wants jpg files. It seems like they would prefer a lossless format like png. I din't understand why cropping the picture of the pyramids to fit the magazine cover was so egregious. All the details were unaltered.
I agree that there is no room for cheating in photojournalism but I didn't think removing the camera in that one photo was really reporting a false story.
I have to agree that a couple cases the meaning of the images didn’t really change - it’s just where they drew the lines in the sand, And basically that photo journalist promise to uphold those rules that makes it so bad, not so much what happened in the final picture
It's a thin line to walk on. I understand some of the editing in these "cheating" pictures as they want to emphasize the eye catcher more. It doesn't necessarily alter the character of the picture, but instead makes it cleaner. It's also something I will do, but I'm not a photojournalist. The same with directing people or a stage. Is asking a caravan with camels to walk next to the pyramids cheating? It's something they would do otherwise (maybe), but at the moment you just weren't there. If I see what television programs (Discovery, BBC, National Geographic) now present as authentic, it's much more directed and staged than what these photojournalists are doing, yet no-one calls them out for cheating (as far as I know). A good example of this is the BBC video about a final test to become a Shaolin monk: ruclips.net/video/Zbow21FKJS4/видео.html Yet this guy points out how staged it is, but concludes that nonetheless it's one of the more realistic depictions of the life of a Shaolin monk: ruclips.net/video/jHUewEWi9SE/видео.html
All good points. I think the thing with photojournalism is "truth" is assumed to be pure, and if there are any deviations from it, it is no longer true. Take the kent state photo for example, did photoshopping a post out change the meaning or significance of the image? Not really to me, but because it is photojournalism, they want to eliminate any and all gray area. Many interesting points to consider.
I agree. Among various examples the degree of alterations is going from fairly innocent ones to the complete fake person. It's good to discuss things. I still would make a difference
But just a sec, Michael. The staged aircraft carrier/President Bush shot wasn’t set up by the photographer, J. Scott Applewhite, was it? He was a staffer for AP back then, I think if anything he was an unknowing pawn in the whole thing. Please clarify.
But please be sensitive to the fact that your opening statement is “Photographers who got caught cheating.” Almost a dozen examples are shown of photographers who did, in fact, cheat and right in there is the prominently credited Applewhite picture. I guess ultimately people will understand a photographer would not be able stage an aircraft carrier and the president of the USA, but still. He’s kind of lumped into a rogues gallery. And I have no connection other than being a former news photographer.
Anthony C I thought I was pretty dang clear. The bush administration didn’t take the picture, (should we credit them instead?). There are some who speculate the entire press was complicit (that’s another story), and I actually have some questions about his image (specifically how the banners color seems to change from shot to shot). He would be a good interview. Did someone tell him to stand exactly there. How was it composed so perfectly? Even still I didn’t blame him directly: so there’s that.
@@MMaven There's a very high likelihood that photographers were limited to a very small vantage point at that event, much like they are for almost all big official to-dos. He was probably packed shoulder-to-shoulder with all the other media representatives
Journalism should be allowed to make use of creative techniques. To illustrate issues. To stop people moving away from print and quality online media to ridiculous social media posts. That's my view despite your excellent arguments. A way out of the dilemma would be to disclose the treatment, ideally with symbols indicating whether there was an interaction, a staging or editing going on. Not allowing the photographer to talk to the subject takes away an essential element of portrait shots. Or somehow it is trying to limit the story-telling abilities of the photographers. Which would only work for robots taking photos.
Hey, I admire your work, what an amazing video. It will be amazing if you looked at my channel to see if you like any of my videos. Keep up the superb work! I look forward to your next video.
As a total amateur, I must say that I am surprised that the standards for what is acceptable in photo journalism is so harsh. For me the important thing is if the actual event being pictured happened as shown or not. Just reframing or even editing away non important things should be accepted IMHO. Who cares if the number of fence poles is correct or not? The important thing was the shooting and the victims. Focusing on minor alternations is for me just another example of how we the people of today has lost the ability to see what is relevant and what isn’t. And who cares if a political picture is staged? Basically everything a politician does is staged, from the speeches to the clothes and the people they shake hands with. Even the menues of their official dinners are carefully picked in order to either send or not send a specific message. Requiring pictures of politicians to be non staged would limit the entire press coverage to paparazzi pictures of their back lawns, and how politically interesting is that? I am not criticizing this video btw, Michael is just telling this as it is and the examples are very interesting! But I do think we need to get our focus back on what is important and what isn’t. And as long as a picture is not meant to show the number of fence poles, who cares if one is missing or not?
Ethical colleagues and news organizations (who usually on the slightest whiff of a doctored photo/manipulated situation) often force the unethical photographer out of his or her job, who would've thought that.
Also, I have a VPN. I set it to Japan and get a lot of great ads to watch instead of just clicking through the Western annoying trash. I hope that helps your ad revenue.
The camera never lies, the photographer does. This was a great interesting tubes Michael. Thanks for sharing
Michael, the story you tell is important because don’t simply condemn these practices, you help to expose the conditions upon which they exist. This has been super useful. 👍🏼
This is an excellent post and much needed. Thanks for opening the eyes of people who tend to believe everything they see in photo journalism! Well done Michael.
The decision by Reuters to only accept JPEG files is a curious one. I can manipulate a RAW file in Photoshop then create a jpeg from that and submit the photo. Surely Reuters should be requesting exactly the opposite by only accepting RAW files! Raw files are the only way to know for sure that what you have is a completely unedited straight out of camera image. It's like the difference between submitting a physical print which might have been manipulated in the dark room and or giving them the actual film negative. RAWs and film negatives don't lie 😉
The exif data will show you created that jpeg in photoshop. An out of camera jpeg will not show that.
@@Olds79Starfire Exif data can be edited. It proves nothing
Was going to say exactly this. It's a really weird move. Like, "we don't want edited photographs, so give us ONLY the ones that can be edited easily, and NOT the ones that can't be edited easily, or at all". It's the opposite of what they should do. There's, like, a gazillion ways to edit a jpg and re-export it via Luminar/Lightroom so it appears nothing really was done to it.
As far as I know, there's really no way to edit the RAW data in a RAW file, only settings on top of it.
@@AnnaVahtera my thoughts were quite similar. They should have to send the final jpg(out of cam or graded) and the raw as a proof. Where's the problem?
People who own cameras have little if any ethics. When I started as a newspaper photographer 35 years ago, my first editor said he would fire anyone who altered or falsely reported news. Those ethics are still my cornerstone today, even in retirement.
True. I started in the profession a bit before you, in 1980, and I had the same experience. As you recall, some of the remaining old-school cigar-chomping guys were at the very end of their careers and out the door went certain practices like moving a child’s charred doll closer to the camera at the scene of a house fire. News Photographer, the monthly magazine of the National Press Photographers Association, was the Bible with the NPPA's code of ethics.
How refreshing to hear a plea for truth and honesty in world seemingly filled with endless manipulations and outright lies. Well done, sir!
I would love to see a part 2 of this video! 🤯🙏🏼👍🏼
Excellent stuff Michael.
I really love these series of videos you're doing lately. I'm a customer of yours (Canon t6i instructional video). I'm really a film shooter, though. I don't use photoshop... don't even own the program. I did, however, run one of my photos (digital) through a blue filter because I didn't like the ugly gray water of the bay, but I've never passed it off as original. I'll never be a famous or well known photographer, but that's ok. I have fun doing my thing. I did, however, amaze myself after I picked up the hobby as a novice and moved up to amateur quite quickly. I often wonder if I'll ever be able to out do myself from when the passion really burned inside me. My job gets in the way of my heart's desire, but the lousy job is what afforded me the means to acquire the gear. I'll be starting film development soon; I purchased a Lab-Box for 35mm and 120. As soon as I start my new job and get settled in I'm going to develop my first roll of film.
Thank you so much for your insights and especially for your support I really appreciate it
Very interesting topic. You are establishing yourself as a truly original content creator. No more repetitive equipment propaganda targeting subscribers with GAS. Finally, I don't have to feel guilty about watching youtube. Mahalos!
Thank you so much for noticing, this is what I am trying to do. While I know gear videos will have many more views, likes, and subscriptions, I am more interested in pursuing meaningful content that stimulates thought. I enjoy these much more.
@@MMaven as do I and many others. They just need to be woken. If you build it they will come!
With the flood of new camera announcements lot of RUclipsrs post essential the same views. Having contend beyond consumerism is refreshing!
I agree totally with your stance presented here Michael. I didn't realise that manipulation was so rife in photo journalism, I try not to be too cynical :)) Thank's.
Apparently it happens a lot.
Well put -great summary
Glad you talked about this subject. Kinda surprised some big companies only accept JPEGS
Great video, Michael!
Thank you, Chelsea ☺️
Enjoyed this someone needs to say it, journalism has always told the story they want
Get photojournalists to shoot film and submit their negatives.
This really undermines the "truth" element of photography. We all know that a picture is not reality. At the same time we rely on images to represent som kind of truth. I find that duality troubling at times.
Oh man! That airplane shot at @05:08 is definitely something that is all too common in social media. I see that type of shot (upward shot of an airplane perfectly in place between some kind of landmarks) it a lot. Definitely too good to be true. A local new station (@abc7la) shared a photo or an airplane perfectly lined up between palm trees during a sunset. While everyone commented about how amazing the shot was and how it was a "1 in a million" shot, I actually called out the photographer for photoshopping the plane since the plane was lit up with sunlight coming from the side while the sunset was actually happening in a completely different direction. Lol
I am loving your content. Glad I found your channel.
Jerry Jones Jr thank you Jerry!
Very interesting video, raising essential reflexions about truth and the representation of it.
I'm left with so many questions, and I love that!
Thanks a lot for this food for though.
Another good topic Michael
This is the one thing that I can't stand, people cheating, stealing others work and defrauding the public with their "work". I personally am not a Photo journalist, and my photos are mostly for art. I may edit very very little. Or I may use a preset in Lightroom if the photo calls for it. I have a cousin that would take Photos offline, even if the Site said "these are free to use" for editing practicing only. She would change the photo enough and call it her own and watermark it and try to sell it. Then claims to be the worlds best photographer when she has only been taking pictures for about 5-6 years. She tells me my work is Crap and I have been shooting photography for 16 years. When she gets called out she plays the victim and claims bullying. It's only been recently that I have taken it up from a hobby to a career because many people wanted to buy my work. I personally didn't think I was that Good till someone from KTVI in St. Louis and a couple photographers from The Post Dispatch asked why I was not doing this professionally. I don't like to use other people's work. The only exception that I have is for my actual job as a Vacation Consultant for Expedia Cruises that Gave me permission to use their content to do Videos and create ads for bookings for the different Cruise lines. Other than that my work is my own. This Video was very informative in case I would like to get into Photo journalism. I know what Not to do. But, I think I will stick with Travel, landscape, and wildlife photography for now.
I was waiting to see you to include some youtube 'personalities' who were caught showing the youtube audience someone else's photos and claiming them to be their own.
Great Info and keep it up Mike
~~~ I’m just getting into photography and I look at people’s photos on Instagram, FB and some others and even to me I see pictures that have been Photoshopped so many times. There is one in particular that shows an air plane that sits in the middle of a opening in this forest. I’ve seen boats and so many things are being used with this open area in the middle of the forest.
I don't object to the edits of the Kent State picture, the National Geographic cover with the camels & pyramids, or many of the other ones. Sure there were changes to enhance their visual impact, but nothing of any significance was altered to change the essential elements of the story being told.
The editors could have chosen to use illustrations, which certainly would have excluded imperfections, or items irrelevant to the story.
Interesting. Good video. I thought it would be easier to manipulate jpegs than raw files. Especially since most filters, profiles computational settings on cameras will usually only apply to jpegs. I just found it odd they only accept jpeg.
I keep my photo editing to drawing mustaches on people with a magic marker
Important topic which isn't covered by many youtubers.
I guess I still have a lot to learn. I cannot see how Reuters could tell if a jpeg is straight from the camera or was created, from a RAW file, after being manipulated.
Great Video Micheal and good that somebody summarized the truth, so wake up all again is helpful👍🏼
Thank you I have a lot more historical photos coming each with their own sets of lessons
Thanks for this.. adventure of what not to do or how not to get caught..
Very interesting topic, never really thought about it 👍🏻
I agree about presenting what really was shot for photojournalism.
I'm not a big fan of doing tons of post-processing for anything because I feel you become a computer graphic artist and not a photographer at that point. What happened to get the shot right in camera first? Just my small worthless opinion.
Great info and thanks for the video.
I'm liking these photography topic videos.
My photo of Napoleon at the battle of Waterloo was ridiculously deemed fake when I can attest I was there and took the photo!
I think it is funny the double standards print and tv media hold photojournalist to. The scrutiny they uphold photos to, but they don't hold the verbal and literary "photoshopping" they do to sway and manipulate public opinions to the same level of scrutiny. Seems every day I watch the news, the news anchors will always have an editorial comment or facial gesture on camera to show how they feel about an issue instead of presenting the facts.
That’s a good point
People often confuse the concepts of objectivity and factuality. It is ok (and inevitable) for journalists and photojournalists to express their feelings or opinions about facts, as long as the facts are honestly presented in whole, truthfully.
The very act of publishing a picture or writing an article is not an objective one. Right there, one decides what one feels important to share.
Well said Michael.
The problem is that almost everyone in this days alter their photos more or less. What is ok or not? It depends on who you ask...
I'm a very mediocre street photographer and even I always make sure to be clear when a photo isn't fully candid
It doesn't make sence that Reuters will not accept RAW files but puts their trust in JPG files. We all know a RAW file cannot be manipulated but a JPG can.
Is bracketing / multiple exposure / stacking considered cheating? Before I learned photography I used to think astrophotography was what you see in real life and when I went to these remote places to star gaze I realized that my eyes couldn't see the same thing these astrophotographers posted
Excellent point! If the limits are extremely close it becomes hard to define them!
imo, for astrophotography I think it's not considering a cheating. Because what were you taken is a fact. Even though our eyes can't see them, it doesn't mean the truth isn't there. It doesn't mean they're not real at a time. They're still there, no matter we can sense them or not.
Because the title discussing about photojournalism, which is means giving a fraction of *raw fact*, it would be different from photography which including art and beauty in making.
*I'm sorry with my language, still working with it
Well done!
It's strange that Reuters wants jpg files. It seems like they would prefer a lossless format like png.
I din't understand why cropping the picture of the pyramids to fit the magazine cover was so egregious.
All the details were unaltered.
I didn’t get much out of this video but the stories are interesting.
Interesting video, thanks
It’s ok to lie and cheat so long as you don’t get caught. Or if you are the president 😂
MAGA
Fantastic video.
great Video, i like it, totally agree whith your point
Good video , I`d say a lot of that comes back to how you live your life , how much is your integrity worth ?
great video!
I agree that there is no room for cheating in photojournalism but I didn't think removing the camera in that one photo was really reporting a false story.
I have to agree that a couple cases the meaning of the images didn’t really change - it’s just where they drew the lines in the sand, And basically that photo journalist promise to uphold those rules that makes it so bad, not so much what happened in the final picture
makes you wonders how many got away with this
It's a thin line to walk on. I understand some of the editing in these "cheating" pictures as they want to emphasize the eye catcher more. It doesn't necessarily alter the character of the picture, but instead makes it cleaner. It's also something I will do, but I'm not a photojournalist.
The same with directing people or a stage. Is asking a caravan with camels to walk next to the pyramids cheating? It's something they would do otherwise (maybe), but at the moment you just weren't there. If I see what television programs (Discovery, BBC, National Geographic) now present as authentic, it's much more directed and staged than what these photojournalists are doing, yet no-one calls them out for cheating (as far as I know).
A good example of this is the BBC video about a final test to become a Shaolin monk: ruclips.net/video/Zbow21FKJS4/видео.html
Yet this guy points out how staged it is, but concludes that nonetheless it's one of the more realistic depictions of the life of a Shaolin monk: ruclips.net/video/jHUewEWi9SE/видео.html
All good points.
I think the thing with photojournalism is "truth" is assumed to be pure, and if there are any deviations from it, it is no longer true. Take the kent state photo for example, did photoshopping a post out change the meaning or significance of the image? Not really to me, but because it is photojournalism, they want to eliminate any and all gray area. Many interesting points to consider.
I agree. Among various examples the degree of alterations is going from fairly innocent ones to the complete fake person. It's good to discuss things. I still would make a difference
Perfection
Oh yeah you eanred a sub! 😁
you did a good job, but the rags sheets NEVER lie??????? I don't condone cheating BTW
Is it still considered cheating if you submit the photos to CNN and Fox News? 😜
I would never submit photos to any news organization without payment. Your work has value.
But just a sec, Michael. The staged aircraft carrier/President Bush shot wasn’t set up by the photographer, J. Scott Applewhite, was it? He was a staffer for AP back then, I think if anything he was an unknowing pawn in the whole thing. Please clarify.
I was explicit. Re-watch it
But please be sensitive to the fact that your opening statement is “Photographers who got caught cheating.” Almost a dozen examples are shown of photographers who did, in fact, cheat and right in there is the prominently credited Applewhite picture. I guess ultimately people will understand a photographer would not be able stage an aircraft carrier and the president of the USA, but still. He’s kind of lumped into a rogues gallery. And I have no connection other than being a former news photographer.
Anthony C I thought I was pretty dang clear.
The bush administration didn’t take the picture, (should we credit them instead?). There are some who speculate the entire press was complicit (that’s another story), and I actually have some questions about his image (specifically how the banners color seems to change from shot to shot). He would be a good interview.
Did someone tell him to stand exactly there. How was it composed so perfectly? Even still I didn’t blame him directly: so there’s that.
@@MMaven There's a very high likelihood that photographers were limited to a very small vantage point at that event, much like they are for almost all big official to-dos. He was probably packed shoulder-to-shoulder with all the other media representatives
Journalism should be allowed to make use of creative techniques. To illustrate issues. To stop people moving away from print and quality online media to ridiculous social media posts. That's my view despite your excellent arguments.
A way out of the dilemma would be to disclose the treatment, ideally with symbols indicating whether there was an interaction, a staging or editing going on.
Not allowing the photographer to talk to the subject takes away an essential element of portrait shots. Or somehow it is trying to limit the story-telling abilities of the photographers. Which would only work for robots taking photos.
That’s actually a really interesting idea. I would be ok with certain types of adjustments if they were noted with icons below the image.
I made a video about your comment:
Disclosing Image Edits With Universal Icons - is it time? ruclips.net/video/IXEt1AF6jUk/видео.html thanks again!
bunch of liars
Hey, I admire your work, what an amazing video. It will be amazing if you looked at my channel to see if you like any of my videos. Keep up the superb work! I look forward to your next video.
As a total amateur, I must say that I am surprised that the standards for what is acceptable in photo journalism is so harsh. For me the important thing is if the actual event being pictured happened as shown or not. Just reframing or even editing away non important things should be accepted IMHO. Who cares if the number of fence poles is correct or not? The important thing was the shooting and the victims.
Focusing on minor alternations is for me just another example of how we the people of today has lost the ability to see what is relevant and what isn’t. And who cares if a political picture is staged? Basically everything a politician does is staged, from the speeches to the clothes and the people they shake hands with. Even the menues of their official dinners are carefully picked in order to either send or not send a specific message. Requiring pictures of politicians to be non staged would limit the entire press coverage to paparazzi pictures of their back lawns, and how politically interesting is that?
I am not criticizing this video btw, Michael is just telling this as it is and the examples are very interesting! But I do think we need to get our focus back on what is important and what isn’t. And as long as a picture is not meant to show the number of fence poles, who cares if one is missing or not?
Journalists staging or misleading the public, who would’ve thought that.
Ethical colleagues and news organizations (who usually on the slightest whiff of a doctored photo/manipulated situation) often force the unethical photographer out of his or her job, who would've thought that.
@@anthonyc1883 Ethical news organisations? HAHAHAHA
@@Olds79Starfire I won't engage you or others in a political debate. Done.
Also, I have a VPN. I set it to Japan and get a lot of great ads to watch instead of just clicking through the Western annoying trash. I hope that helps your ad revenue.