L.A. Times photographer Brian Walski, covering the conflict in Iraq, lost his job at the newspaper on Tuesday for digitally compositing two shots to achieve a "better composition."
Documenting the efforts of a British soldier instructing civilians to take cover on the outskirts of Basra, Walski's manip was published in Monday's edition of the L.A. Times. Only after an employee of the Hartord Courant - who was going to use the syndicated photograph - spotted a possible problem with the image, a full investigation took place.
Walski admitted to using Photoshop to create a composite image out of two distinct photographs, in contravention with the newspaper's policy and photographic ethics. On Tuesday, the L.A. Times posted an editor's note explaining the incident and the photographer's dismissal.
This once again raises some interesting issues about the truthfulness of images used by the mass media, and where the boundaries are when it comes to digital enhancements and manipulations of photograph. See also
Poynter Online article: Magazine Covers: Photojournalism or Illustration? from December 30th 2002.
Devious Comments
--
`splat
Patrick Haney, not a sausage
Designer, developer, deviant
--
modelcase - people&lifestyle photography | Hendrik Will Photography
how can it be OK when medias are crowded with things like that
with manipulated photos it becomes even worse
--
~*F/8 and be there*~
--
Take me down to the Paradise City...
<html>
:: Unblogged :: :: DevArt Page ::
and it doesn't NOT reflect the reality
but it does look more... impressive this way.
I'm hesitating on which side to take.
--
deviantART Photography Gallery
Hesi Prints
now if he had worked for the Sunday Sport then he probably would have got away with it
interestingly 'The Times' here in the UK has a artist out in the gulf. I've seen quite a few 'impressions' of war on the front page.
--
Pies Not Petrol
--
My DeviantArt Gallery
this, however, is definitely an intended manipulation. by combining the two bland shots, Walski created a powerful image with a completely new meaning. it is showing something that has never happened, an interpretation, rather than a depiction.
and yes, after all has been said and done, the rules are the rules. the Walski was well aware that he was breaking them, in order to get a "killer" image (pardon to pun)
speaking to ~stevesm last night about this, i was reminded of the big hoo-haa about the OJ Simpson picture on TIME magazine. if you remember, it was discovered that the mugshot of OJ had been quite drastically darkened to make him look "blacker", putting a heavier spin on the whole ethnic angle, distorting reality and adding a new meaning to the shot.
--
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively. [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
splintered | flickr
--
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively. [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
splintered | flickr
Previous Page1234 Next Page