Ethics continued.
Posted by Tim Gruber | Filed under Uncategorized
In my last post I wrote about an ethical mess.
Mr. Thompson has since gone back and reworked his moon photo. Here’s the previous version of the photo.
Of the changes he writes:
(Update: 08/06/07: I went back to the image and backed the enhancement off three levels and also updated the explanation on what was done. A more complete explanation can be found here.)
He also wrote more about the revision in the comments on my previous post:
What is different is the final image. Because of the debate, I went back and looked at each of the files and layers that were used during enhancement. I tried backing off three levels of enhancement and the image that now appears on my web site is, I feel, a more accurate portayal of the moon. It is still a photo illustration and is identified as such.
I’m still left wondering why he’s trying to make an illustration of a general news/feature assignment.
Doug has since restored the original thread that displays the before and after photos and his thoughts on ethics. Thanks for that Doug.
The last few comments on Doug’s photo raised by Allen Kurth and Mr. Thompson’s response to Allen is worth a read.
For a lesson in why we as journalists have to make sure we uphold ourselves to the highest standards read the comments on one of Doug’s recent photos. Cause the general public won’t.
Another discussion on this from the photojournalism perspective on SportsShooter.
In a comment to my first post Doug wrote:
Was this a learning experience? Yes, it was.
I have written a clarification this week that says the photo failed to state that it was an illustration. The editors tell me they are satisfied that I was honest with them but I doubt that I will ever dabble in photo illustration for news use again.
Thank you.
I was wrong and take responsibility for the way it was handled. I have said so on my blog. But I have to ask that why no shooter who has criticized me here or elsewhere took the time to call or email and ask for details?
Did Doug screw up? I’ll let you decide that for yourself. As for why I highlighted it in a blog entry rather than a email? For the same reason that Doug posted the work on his blog. To start a discussion on a topic that isn’t a simple black and white issue. Hopefully it was educational for everyone involved.
Doug what I find most dis-heartening is when I read the about page on your site. You seem like a decent guy who has a storied background in journalism and someone who shares that with up and coming journalists.
Despite his work in new media, Thompson remains a newspaperman at heart and lives by the creed that it is the role of a newspaperman to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
He returns to Washington once a year to speak to journalism students at the Washington Center for Politics and Journalism
So I’m left scratching my head as to why Doug did what he did.
Further Reading:
Tags: journalism, photojournalism, Uncategorized
3 Responses to “Ethics continued.”
-
Doug Thompson Says:
August 8th, 2007 at 10:06 amTim:
Thank you for following up on this.
To try and answer your questions, I created the image as an experiment with the intention of using it for my Photoshop class. I posted it on the blog, as do I do with many photo illustrations, for the readers and to get reactions. When I turned in my work from the assignment, I told the editor about it and she said she would like to take a look at it. She decided to use it and I provided information. Not all that information was used in the paper and I blame myself for not making sure that it was. This is a very small weekly and they have no experience in photo illustrations. It was my responsibility to make sure it was handled and identified properly in print. It wasn’t. I’m not going to blame anyone but myself for the fact that it happened. The correction published this week clearly states that the editors know the history of the illustration before it was printed.
I’m a semi-retired shooter who moved to the mountains after a car accident in Washington left me with an artificial hip and two plastic knees. The photography and reporting work for my local paper is a part-time gig that I do to keep my hand in. It’s usually fun because I worked for the same paper in high school. I also worked from 1965-69 for The Roanoke Times, your current gig.
Most of my income these days comes from gallery sales and commercial work and from teaching. I’m not going to support myself or my wife on what I make from a parttime job with rural weekly.
In retrospect, I should have never brought the illustration to the editor’s attention. I won’t make that mistake again.
I’m not a SportShooter member so I cannot defend myself in that venue. I’ve got a lifetime in this business and if I go out as “just another Allen Detrich” it will hurt. I think that charge is unfair but in this era of trial by Internet I have no control over it. I screwed up. I’m going to learn from the experience and move on.
–Doug
-
M. Scott Brauer Says:
August 8th, 2007 at 1:18 pm“So I’m left scratching my head as to why Doug did what he did.”
That’s the thing that always amazes me about most of the big photo manipulation scandals in the past few years. I can never figure out why the photographers make the changes they do. In every case that comes to my mind, the photos have started out mediocre and, after manipulation, ended mediocre (or worse, mediocre and cliche). This one is no exception, though I guess in this case, at least the manipulated photo has something sharp in it. In my mind, the manipulated, and especially the unmanipulated, would be quickly added to the “out” section of my edit. And the reworked photo is just as bad as the original “illustration,” only dimmer, the same amount of information has been added to the photo in postproduction.
-
Daniel Says:
August 10th, 2007 at 2:27 pmI couldn’t understand some parts of this article , but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
