10 News photos that took retouching too far
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Many news photographs are Photoshopped here and there to increase clarity or to optimize for print or online display. But there have been several instances where retouching has been pushed too far, changing the original intent or accuracy of the photo.
The revered magazine was accused of altering a photograph so that the Egyptian pyramids were closer together and thus fit on the vertical cover. The mag's editors were allegedly unapologetic about creating a more aesthetically pleasing cover. Rich Clarkson, director of photography at National Geographic during the time, said he had no ethical problem with combining two photographs into a single cover picture, although "some publications could start abusing."
When a darkened mugshot of troubled football star appeared on the cover of TIME Magazine, it was deemed artistic interpretation. Critics accused the mag of blackening OJ Simpson's skin to make him appear more animalistic and incite racial sentiments. It didn't help that an unaltered photo of Simpson appeared on a Newsweek cover that same week.
Original photos
Published photo
Photographer Brian Walski was fired from his position at the Los Angeles Times after it was discovered that two news photographs of a gun-toting soldier had been combined to create a more intense photo. When later asked why he had digitally manipulated the photo and risked his career Walski replied: "I knew what I was doing. It looked good. It looked better than what I had, and I said 'wow.'"
Original, published photo
An Associate Press photo that appeared on the USA Today website showed then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with unusually menacing eyes, a result of too much retouching. Some questioned whether the effect had been created deliberately as it was difficult to easily replicate. The offending photo was quickly removed and replaced with a version much closer to the original and an apology from the paper's photo editor.
If this award-winning photo of Tibetan antelopes and a nearby train seems a bit askew, it's because it is a combination of two separate photographs.
Photographer Liu Weiqiang merged the images after waiting for two weeks for the perfect photo with no success. Despite his earnestness, he was eventually blacklisted by several Chinese news outlets.
The image of a firefighter against a blazing sky, shot by award-winning photographer Patrick Schneider, was later revealed to be a retouched version of the original in which the sky appeared to be a "brownish-gray." Schneider had previously been reprimanded for adding intensity in the color and backgrounds of his photos and was eventually fired from his position.
Original photo
Published photo
Reuters was accused of bias against Israel when a doctored photo of the capital city of Lebanon was released by the wire service. The photo, submitted by Lebanese freelance photographer Adnan Hajj, shows (badly) cloned smoke and buildings and a darkened skyline. Reuters ultimately broke all ties with Hajj, who was accused of retouching other photos as well.
Veteran news photographer and Pulitzer Prize finalist Allan Detrich resigned from his post at the Blade after it was discovered that at least 79 of his photos had been Photoshopped beyond the standards of the paper. In the photo below, a ball had been added to increase the drama of a basketball game.
Original, published photo
The Blade later removed all of Detrich's photos from its website and issued an in-depth explanation and apology.
In the previous examples, the photographs were retouched to enhance the beauty or impact. The following photo was edited to remove a rival publisher (center).
Original photo
Published photo
The Taiwanese newspaper was accused of digitally removing United Daily News Wang Shaw-lan from a photo of a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI. Liberty Times reporter Chang Ning-hsing said she edited out the publisher because the picture was too large and that Wang was not an "essential presence."
After submitting his stunning photos of Haiti to a Danish photo contest, Christensen was asked to submit the original RAW files as well. The difference was remarkable and the contest judges disqualified the photos, calling them "extreme" and "unacceptable." Christensen admitted that he had heavily processed the photos, but maintained that the result was within his limits.
Original photo
Published photo
In many newsrooms it is unethical to pass off a retouched photo as reality. Ideally, retouching of a news photograph should be limited to basic exposure and color correction, cropping, resizing, or conversion to grayscale. Any Photoshopping that alters the meaning of the original photo should be labeled as a "news illustration" in the caption so the viewer understands the photo has been altered.
Retouching may seem innocent, but can have a profound effect on the way we remember an event, according to a 2007 study published in Applied Cognitive Psychology.
"Any media that employ digitally doctored photographs will have a stronger effect than merely influencing our opinion – by tampering with our malleable memory, they may ultimately change the way we recall history," said researcher Dario Sacchi.
For more on the ethics of news photography, check out the National Press Photographers Association's code of ethics.
Also on 10,000 Words:
• 21 Free online photo editing tools
• 30 Amazing photoblogs (and a few tips for creating one)
• Photojournalism: Where to find the best in news photography
• 6 Creative approaches to photography
National Geographic, February 1982
The revered magazine was accused of altering a photograph so that the Egyptian pyramids were closer together and thus fit on the vertical cover. The mag's editors were allegedly unapologetic about creating a more aesthetically pleasing cover. Rich Clarkson, director of photography at National Geographic during the time, said he had no ethical problem with combining two photographs into a single cover picture, although "some publications could start abusing."
OJ Simpson, TIME Magazine, June 1994
When a darkened mugshot of troubled football star appeared on the cover of TIME Magazine, it was deemed artistic interpretation. Critics accused the mag of blackening OJ Simpson's skin to make him appear more animalistic and incite racial sentiments. It didn't help that an unaltered photo of Simpson appeared on a Newsweek cover that same week.
Soldier in Basra, Los Angeles Times, March 2003
Original photos
Published photo
Photographer Brian Walski was fired from his position at the Los Angeles Times after it was discovered that two news photographs of a gun-toting soldier had been combined to create a more intense photo. When later asked why he had digitally manipulated the photo and risked his career Walski replied: "I knew what I was doing. It looked good. It looked better than what I had, and I said 'wow.'"
Condoleezza Rice, USA Today, October 2005
Original, published photo
An Associate Press photo that appeared on the USA Today website showed then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with unusually menacing eyes, a result of too much retouching. Some questioned whether the effect had been created deliberately as it was difficult to easily replicate. The offending photo was quickly removed and replaced with a version much closer to the original and an apology from the paper's photo editor.
Tibetan railroad, Liu Weiqiang, 2006
If this award-winning photo of Tibetan antelopes and a nearby train seems a bit askew, it's because it is a combination of two separate photographs.
Photographer Liu Weiqiang merged the images after waiting for two weeks for the perfect photo with no success. Despite his earnestness, he was eventually blacklisted by several Chinese news outlets.
The Charlotte Observer, July 2006
The image of a firefighter against a blazing sky, shot by award-winning photographer Patrick Schneider, was later revealed to be a retouched version of the original in which the sky appeared to be a "brownish-gray." Schneider had previously been reprimanded for adding intensity in the color and backgrounds of his photos and was eventually fired from his position.
Beirut fires, Reuters, August 2006
Original photo
Published photo
Reuters was accused of bias against Israel when a doctored photo of the capital city of Lebanon was released by the wire service. The photo, submitted by Lebanese freelance photographer Adnan Hajj, shows (badly) cloned smoke and buildings and a darkened skyline. Reuters ultimately broke all ties with Hajj, who was accused of retouching other photos as well.
The Toledo Blade, April 2007
Veteran news photographer and Pulitzer Prize finalist Allan Detrich resigned from his post at the Blade after it was discovered that at least 79 of his photos had been Photoshopped beyond the standards of the paper. In the photo below, a ball had been added to increase the drama of a basketball game.
Original, published photo
The Blade later removed all of Detrich's photos from its website and issued an in-depth explanation and apology.
Papal delegation, Liberty Times, December 2007
In the previous examples, the photographs were retouched to enhance the beauty or impact. The following photo was edited to remove a rival publisher (center).
Original photo
Published photo
The Taiwanese newspaper was accused of digitally removing United Daily News Wang Shaw-lan from a photo of a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI. Liberty Times reporter Chang Ning-hsing said she edited out the publisher because the picture was too large and that Wang was not an "essential presence."
Klavs Bo Christensen, April 2009
After submitting his stunning photos of Haiti to a Danish photo contest, Christensen was asked to submit the original RAW files as well. The difference was remarkable and the contest judges disqualified the photos, calling them "extreme" and "unacceptable." Christensen admitted that he had heavily processed the photos, but maintained that the result was within his limits.
Original photo
Published photo
In many newsrooms it is unethical to pass off a retouched photo as reality. Ideally, retouching of a news photograph should be limited to basic exposure and color correction, cropping, resizing, or conversion to grayscale. Any Photoshopping that alters the meaning of the original photo should be labeled as a "news illustration" in the caption so the viewer understands the photo has been altered.
Retouching may seem innocent, but can have a profound effect on the way we remember an event, according to a 2007 study published in Applied Cognitive Psychology.
"Any media that employ digitally doctored photographs will have a stronger effect than merely influencing our opinion – by tampering with our malleable memory, they may ultimately change the way we recall history," said researcher Dario Sacchi.
For more on the ethics of news photography, check out the National Press Photographers Association's code of ethics.
Also on 10,000 Words:
• 21 Free online photo editing tools
• 30 Amazing photoblogs (and a few tips for creating one)
• Photojournalism: Where to find the best in news photography
• 6 Creative approaches to photography
Labels: photos
40 Comments
Marten Says:
It is often said that the camera never lies but a lot of the skill of photography is getting the camera to present a truth. The artistic truth of a photographer's personal message may be emphasised with manipulation, but reportage has a duty to stick with what is (and isn't) actually there. Christensen's Haiti photographs are borderline, Soldier in Basra is a great picture which steps the wrong side of the line, and the National Geographic has nothing to apologise for, it isn't reportage.
Says:
"The camera never lies, but it often misleads. The photographer often lies."
Today, for work, I massively manipulated actual events in two photos. At the request of customers. Quite often I see a straight photo that appears more unrealistic than a heavily altered photo.
The Beirut photo is probably the worst shop job ever published, ignoring things on the photoshopdisasters blog. It is less convincing than the original and just looks like utter shit. The last photo is just a matter of doing a horrific job of increasing contrast (probably done with multiple tools). It's amazing how little skill it really takes to make someone much more or less attractive, or to completely fabricate events.
Today, for work, I massively manipulated actual events in two photos. At the request of customers. Quite often I see a straight photo that appears more unrealistic than a heavily altered photo.
The Beirut photo is probably the worst shop job ever published, ignoring things on the photoshopdisasters blog. It is less convincing than the original and just looks like utter shit. The last photo is just a matter of doing a horrific job of increasing contrast (probably done with multiple tools). It's amazing how little skill it really takes to make someone much more or less attractive, or to completely fabricate events.
Says:
The one by Christensen definitely shouldn't have been disqualified - it's pretty obvious all he did was tone-map the image to increase the contrast and saturation a little.
The fact that the judges of a photography contest can't recognize an HDR image and rate it on other characteristics besides contrast is kind of sad, and makes me wonder whether the world of expert photography is really just a bunch of bullshit sometimes...
The fact that the judges of a photography contest can't recognize an HDR image and rate it on other characteristics besides contrast is kind of sad, and makes me wonder whether the world of expert photography is really just a bunch of bullshit sometimes...
Says:
@robbles: Keep in mind that this is news photography where photos must be realistic, more or less. This one is heavily tone mapped, a bit over the line, for news photography that is.
Says:
I've spent more than 20 years in or dealing with "the media" and I don't think the amorphous whole can be blamed for the over-enthusiasm of photographers in their retouching. It's true editors place great pressures on the photo desk chiefs to have images that are compelling, but the vast majority of shooters I've worked with, particularly from Reuters, AP, AFP etc, aren't fans of retouching outside exposure adjustments. I would guess that perhaps some of these shooters are frustrated fine art types who want to play with Photoshop's alluring powers rather than true news photos, and we shouldn't be too harsh. All photogs wrestle with the questions about what's reality in digital imagery and the associated question, what kind of photographer am I?
Says:
Just proves the point that the media, from any country in any place, can never be fully trusted to provide the truth to the masses.
Always question the media. Always be vigilant to their biases. Never accept anything from them as total fact.
Always question the media. Always be vigilant to their biases. Never accept anything from them as total fact.
noogins Says:
This isn't about freedom of photography or freedom of speech. It has to do with journalism. News reporting.
News should report the facts, and when photos are part of a news story, they should not present as fact, anything that wasn't actually there. This is not freedom of photography, it is false reporting and must be sanctioned.
If we can't trust the news media (and we can't. even the New York Times has had reporters make up "facts" for their "reporting") if we can't trust them to present facts, how can we make informed choices for our lives?
News should report the facts, and when photos are part of a news story, they should not present as fact, anything that wasn't actually there. This is not freedom of photography, it is false reporting and must be sanctioned.
If we can't trust the news media (and we can't. even the New York Times has had reporters make up "facts" for their "reporting") if we can't trust them to present facts, how can we make informed choices for our lives?
Says:
I think photos are flawed from the start. We want them to tell a story of reality as we would experience in real life but they dont.
Editing photos to tell the real story should not be inappropriate.
Editing photos to tell the real story should not be inappropriate.
ashley Says:
I think many of the photographs were more intense before the initial retouching. The Israel skyline with the burning buildings looked scarier before the retouching, and the Condy photo looked more menacing without the cartoonish whites added to her eyes. It's a pity so many photographers sold themselves short and felt the need to tamper with often times what is already a harsh reality.
Says:
Ouch,
The last one opened my eyes, as habit I alter the raw files and I play and meddle until I get what I want (not as badly as the last one though!), I do what I do to overcome shortfalls in equipment but actually I think I need to go back to the drawing board and alter shooting technique. Having set up my own photography business I cannot afford to chep skate them.
The last one opened my eyes, as habit I alter the raw files and I play and meddle until I get what I want (not as badly as the last one though!), I do what I do to overcome shortfalls in equipment but actually I think I need to go back to the drawing board and alter shooting technique. Having set up my own photography business I cannot afford to chep skate them.
Rod Says:
I think we need to redefine what is a photograph and what is a photoedit or photoart. As soon as you touch an original with any program to make a change, it is no longer an actual photograph. People should stop trying to pass off photoedits or crations as "amazing photographs". The photographs impact is in the eye of the photographer, not in his prowess with software.
gbaked Says:
"as soon as you touch an original with any program to make a change, it is no longer an actual photograph."
but what about before digital photography. When a photographer would spend a week working with a negative and enlarger, figuring out what to dodge and burn, using split contrast... is that not the same thing?
but what about before digital photography. When a photographer would spend a week working with a negative and enlarger, figuring out what to dodge and burn, using split contrast... is that not the same thing?
Don Boyd Says:
@Rod all photographs are photo edits...unless you are using slide filmand only project them. B&W film photos can be "changed" by the grade of paper it is printed on. Are you saying THAT should be acknowledged as well?
bummarketing Says:
Wow !! - seems like even some of the best guys have a devils workshop in their house
gtveloce Says:
Whilst some of these shots clearly and absolutely cross the line, a couple are no different from what we did in the 'old days' of purely chemical photography, dodging, burning in and adjusting colour and contrast, cropping and the rest. Yes, Photoshop et al can be abused more easily and quickly, but let's face it, a photograph is an interpretation of reality, it is never "true". That said, there is a line one must not cross in reporting news, called 'distortion'.
Ken Says:
all photography is a lie.
all media are liars.
work from those two givens and everything will be fine!
:)
all media are liars.
work from those two givens and everything will be fine!
:)
Hugo* Says:
Another interesting and recent example of photo manipulation in the media: when ultra-orthodox Israeli newspapers erased 2 female ministers from the official photo of the new government !
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/setbacks-for-women-in-israel-pakistan-and-afghanistan/
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/setbacks-for-women-in-israel-pakistan-and-afghanistan/
Summer Seale Says:
It truly is amazing to me that some people would justify altering news photos as being a justifiable practice. It isn't legitimate - ever. People who will even think about arguing this point have a very serious problem with ethics.
If you want to be a revolutionary for a cause, go join the cause. But don't join an organization which tries to bring facts to the argument instead of only biased opinions. Certainly, there are exceptions in certain cases for taking sides, but blatant forgery is not acceptable.
If you want to be a revolutionary for a cause, go join the cause. But don't join an organization which tries to bring facts to the argument instead of only biased opinions. Certainly, there are exceptions in certain cases for taking sides, but blatant forgery is not acceptable.
Says:
I first learned Photoshop when it was ver 2.5, and I had a blast putting friends' heads on other bodies, or placing them next to celebrities, etc. It was good for laughs back then, but then I thought to myself "what will happen when newspapers and news reporters learn to do this too?"
Since that moment I stopped trusting published media, because I knew how easy it was to fool the eye.
Since that moment I stopped trusting published media, because I knew how easy it was to fool the eye.
Says:
Medical photography was once done with slide film for the very reason that should an ethical/legal question arise, the original film could be presented as proof of the procedures. Prints could be tampered with, but a slide was a shot of reality. I presume raw image files are now used instead.
Clotilde Says:
The Beirut fires picture retouch is soooooooo bad!!!! I can't even believe it was published that way. That's such a bad work!!!
Says:
You should all remember that people that work in the media aren't paid to tell the truth, but to sell news papers to the public weither it be an exaggerated truth or just blantent bs.
Says:
Although completely unethical, I'm not surprised.
The temptation to pose or alter a shot for today's highly competitive (and dying) print journalism industry is so much higher than it was say two decades ago when the technology wasn't even readily available. I almost sympathize with the photographers/editors who must struggle between the lines of truth and today's cutthroat commercialism. That's why today's media is the way it is. Tell it like it is = mundane = $
embellish a little = sensational = $$$
The temptation to pose or alter a shot for today's highly competitive (and dying) print journalism industry is so much higher than it was say two decades ago when the technology wasn't even readily available. I almost sympathize with the photographers/editors who must struggle between the lines of truth and today's cutthroat commercialism. That's why today's media is the way it is. Tell it like it is = mundane = $
embellish a little = sensational = $$$
Says:
Rember kids, these are only pictures being retouched, your next task is to find the "retouched" parts in the text...
Says:
There is no such thing as reporting anymore. Everything is spin and editorialized. Now it is the photographs that are being manipulated. You can alter a whole story by a little manipulation. That really should not be tolerated.
But, when you see what passes for news today it is not hard to realize a lot has changed.
But, when you see what passes for news today it is not hard to realize a lot has changed.
Skye Says:
This is ridiculous. Most of these images are touch ups. The OJ one especially, all they did was tone up the contrast to make the image more interesting and the font brighter. There isn't anything wrong with this, the picture is still the picture and displaying the truth. Don't make such a big deal out of such stupid things. Come on guys.
Sean Callahan Says:
very nice, found it on stumble upon...cool article. I always knew they did this stuff but these are prime examples of how things get taken wayyyy to far.
Says:
"You should all remember that people that work in the media aren't paid to tell the truth, but to sell news papers to the public weither it be an exaggerated truth or just blantent bs."
That's pretty absurd. Try telling that to the thousands of journalists who hardly "get paid" while trying to tell the untold stories of the world because they feel it's important for the world to see what's happening. Hardly anyone in journalism that does that actual reporting and photography is in it for the money.
These are all highly unethical by photojournalism standards and most professional photojournalists look at these examples as shames on their life's work. You folks may not believe anything you see anymore but there are still plenty of people out there trying to give you the closest thing to the truth every day and living near poverty because of it.
Many of the higher up editors, etc ... they are a different story.
That's pretty absurd. Try telling that to the thousands of journalists who hardly "get paid" while trying to tell the untold stories of the world because they feel it's important for the world to see what's happening. Hardly anyone in journalism that does that actual reporting and photography is in it for the money.
These are all highly unethical by photojournalism standards and most professional photojournalists look at these examples as shames on their life's work. You folks may not believe anything you see anymore but there are still plenty of people out there trying to give you the closest thing to the truth every day and living near poverty because of it.
Many of the higher up editors, etc ... they are a different story.
Kypi Says:
Ever hear of the "Splended little war"? (The spanish-american war) Well, lets just say... the Media manipulating the public had a HUGE impact on the starting of the war (yellow journalism etc with titles such as "The spain blew up the maine"(?))
Says:
I don't see how any of these would reasonably affect my opinion. The ham-handed examples reek of stupid editorial handling, and the others are just pointless.
The slant taken on what to cover and upon what to continue coverage is far more important. These photos are little more than wrapping paper on a box (to me anyway).
The slant taken on what to cover and upon what to continue coverage is far more important. These photos are little more than wrapping paper on a box (to me anyway).
Says:
First off, Photoshop is a noun not a verb. Second, if these existed for display for artistic purpose then perhaps it wouldn't offend me. However, these are used to support what is supposed to be factual news articles and publications. I know I know...fact and news has become an oxymoron. Very disappointing.
Chino Says:
Some of you are against criticizing these retouches and touch ups, but I agree with the basic point. Some of the intention of the photos was changed. For example, in the Beirut fire photo, why make obviously retouched smoke? It reflects some stupidity, and thus, unprofessionalism. The Soldier in Basra photo is a no-no. The meaning is substantially different in the retouch. Yes, there is a big deal to these.
And some of you say that this was being done in the old days too... then it means that ethical management of the old days was sloppy. At least this article shows that it's better watched today.
I am not a photographer, in case you are wondering.
And some of you say that this was being done in the old days too... then it means that ethical management of the old days was sloppy. At least this article shows that it's better watched today.
I am not a photographer, in case you are wondering.
May 21, 2009 3:59 PM