|
A few years before Photoshop, National
Geographic magazine scandalized the publishing world by
digitally moving the Great Sphinx of Egypt a few hundred meters
to create a vertical cover shot. Although the manipulation was
nicely done, the Geo blew it by running the original
horizontal photo on its inside pages.
Then came Photoshop in 1990 and the power to
move sphinxes (or anything else) was in the hands of anyone with
the application in his computer.
In early demonstrations of Photoshop, user group
audiences would really lose it when the rubber stamp (clone)
tool was put into play. One of my first strictly Photoshop
assignments was from a young bride who wanted her second
husband's head transplanted to the groom's body in the photo of
her first, and very elaborate wedding.
Indeed, sophisticated photo manipulation has
become so prevalent in the last decade that "Photoshop it" is
now a part of the graphics vernacular.
For newspaper and magazine editors, Photoshop is
both an invaluable production tool and an ethical nightmare.
With the number of digital cameras in use by photojournalists
growing each month, the ethical bar goes higher.
As a freelance travel writer/photographer, I've
been submitting stories and images to editors electronically for
nearly three years. Early on, I learned that the majority of
newspapers and many other publications will not tolerate digital
manipulation of images due to their codes of ethics.
An editor called me and said "we can't use this
photo because it's been digitally manipulated." I was so proud
of that picture – a nice late afternoon scene of an Italian
village transformed into night with fireworks added to the black
sky. I had "made" a spectacular scene but I had not "taken" the
picture. And, I'd left an alpha channel in the file to tip off
the editor's art director.
My present freelance submissions are still
manipulated: from the raw 72ppi image to 300ppi and CMYK at
eight inches long measure; with modest color correction; and
with a conservative unsharp mask. Before I started using digital
cameras, scanned slides also received careful use of the clone
tool to eliminate dust and scratches.
I take great pains to inform editors in the
story copy and at the top of caption pages that all images are
unmanipulated except for what I've described above.
Since one of my joys is creating panoramas, I'll
occasionally submit a multi-image panorama or a photo collage in
hope of catching an art director's eye but such submissions are
clearly labeled as "manipulated." God, it even sounds evil.
While I understand and sympathize with the need
for image ethics in news-oriented publications, I'm puzzled by
the acceptance and publication of conventional photos that were
clearly manipulated in-camera.
A graduated orange filter in front of a lens can
transform a blah afternoon scene into a stunning sunset – if
used skillfully. Amazing is the number of ham-handed
applications of graduated filters that appear in some of the
best publications. And... if I use a Nik Color Efex graduated
orange filter on an overcast sky in Photoshop, that's digital
manipulation and dishonest.
A Big Ten university recently got roasted when
its admissions office "Photoshopped" a brochure cover photo by
adding a face to a crowd shot to demonstrate ethnic diversity.
Problem is, the manipulation was done amateurishly (lighting
mis-matched, hard-edge selection) and was extremely obvious.
So if you're going to submit photos
electronically for publication, make sure they're honest images.
Check with the publication for submission guidelines. Clearly
state the limit of your manipulation (resolution, color
conversion, color correction, and unsharp masking).
|