photographer vs Newsweek
- Started
- Last post
- 30 Responses
- ribit0
Times have changed, industries have changed. (and this is general editorial, not a photography magazine). Imagery get mashed up, sampled, sliced and diced these days and people are used to seeing things out of context. It all depends on the individual contractual/editorial arrangement, whether the photo will be used only as submitted, in what reports, or what print magazine editions or websites it will be used in. Photographers should cover all this in the contract if they care about it.
- if u think it's about the photographer and his contract you are wrong.pr2
- version30
Absolutely false. Nothing could be further from the truth. Historically, cropping has been considered a cardinal sin by the vast majority of professional photographers. I went to art school where I majored in photography, and where students were encouraged to use “artistic license” to express their ideas.
Even there we were forbidden by our professors to crop our negatives. It was done very rarely, was always obvious, and considered cheap and lazy. The students themselves respected the history of the medium, and if they couldn’t express their ideas within the format they were working, they were told to try harder.
It was an issue of integrity and creative competence. If you cropped your negatives (this was in the late 90’s by the way, not 40-50 years ago), it was “weak” and “square”. Many of the photographers we studied are/were Magnum legends. I wonder if Mr. De Maria would care to ask the folks over at Magnum what they think of cropping and journalistic integrity.
- ukit0
Actually, I think the photographer has it wrong. It's should be perfectly fine to crop a picture (WTF are you going to do, never crop a picture?) as long as it preserves the original context.
I don't think anyone looking at this is going to see anything than what it actually shows - Cheney chopping some meat in a kitchen. It's not like they are actually gonna look at it and think Cheney is some kind of serial killer based on the photo.
In terms of using a picture to make a metaphorical point of some kind, newspapers and magazines do this all the time. What you could argue is off about this usage is just the crassness of showing a guy chopping up meat to make a point about torturing people. So it might be tasteless, but in terms of being misleading, I don't see how it qualifies there.
Overall, the guy is probably raising a stink about it to preserve his friendship or access to Cheney.
- version30
would've been better
http://www.gettyimages.com/detai…
- version30
not to say that i agree but this is well stated...
It reminds me of the famous case of the Mountain of the Holy Cross, photographed in 1873 by William Henry Jackson on an expedition in Colorado to document the American west. A natural feature of the mountain is a craggy cross-shape defined by the contours of the mountain on one side. It is only visible, and only when the conditions are just right, in winter when a thin layer of snow settles into the contours of the mountainside.
Not many people know that Jackson altered his glass plate negative afterwards to exaggerate the visible cross-shape. His images were shown in Washington and the cities of the east, where Congress and devout Christians interpreted his “photograph” of the cross as a message from God, justifying westward expansion and the U.S. policy of Manifest Destiny.
Photography is a powerful medium, and has the unparalleled ability to touch passions and inflame public opinion.
It should be respected.
- pr20
OK guys one thing is Getty where u buy images and do whatever u want with it another thing is Newsweek.
Unless Newsweek wants to be like New York Post - meaning paddler of made-up stories parading as news - it has certain responsibility to the reader. Now, many of us can see through such blatant editorial slant but it's because we work in the advertising (in one form or another and are well aware of manipulations that go on) yet i would not be so surprised if many otherwise smart readers of Newsweek couldn't see through it. Now Chaney is evil, and he's gonna roast in hell right next to Stalin, Hitler and Kissinger but... it's about a serious magazine loosing its face.
- version30
ansel adams looks like he was a nice man
http://www.gettyimages.com/detai…
- version30
reagan + taxes
http://www.gettyimages.com/detai…
- version30
CIA Chief George Bush Attends 1976 Cabinet Meeting
http://www.gettyimages.com/detai…
- version30
our man cheney right here
http://www.gettyimages.com/detai…
- version30
fuckin rumsfeld
http://www.gettyimages.com/detai…
- version30
there's some hotness in his portfolio
http://www.gettyimages.com/detai…
http://www.gettyimages.com/detai…
- Tungsten0
I just searched this photographers archive on Getty Images for the key word "Cheney" and found something interesting. He has some very intimate images of Dick Cheney and his family dating back as far as 1978. These include posed family portraits, and are generally a very positive and cheerful portrayal of the man. I'm not suggesting a political bias, but there is definitely a long standing familiarity with the family. Makes a little more sense now why he was so upset with the use of this photo.
- Tungsten0
it's an average photo that was cropped badly to illustrate a weak editorial slant. I'm surprised a photographer with that level of experience wouldn't be able just laugh this off, instead of making such a big deal out of it. He's working for Getty and Newsweek... what did he expect? I understand his concern for journalistic integrity, but come on, when you shoot Cheney cutting up a piece of bloody meat what do expect the photo is going to be used for?
Newsweek is in the same position as every other magazine right now... desperate for readers and advertising dollars.
- version30
he put the image on getty, any of us has the right to pay our license fee and crop that image however we see fit for whatever purpose we see fit. if the photographer feared possible repercussions from unwanted use, he should have thought of that before placing it within the public domain.
- but yeah, if he threw it into the open, it's his own fault ultimately..freitag
- freitag0
imho
it is about the integrity of the photographer, he was granted to enter into the private life of this family and now the photo gets ripped out of context and used entirely against Cheney. It may become hard for the photographer to ever be allowed in anywhere again.THAT is the point.
(i think, having been a press photographer for years myself..)
- Agree, but disagree. The point is that he loses control of a photo once it is sold. If he wants more control, he should put it in the contract.luckyorphan
- ...contract. Otherwise, it's up fer grabs.luckyorphan
- inhaler970
Also my other question is, we are seeing one page of the magazine, what happened to the other page? Im guessing its ads, and not the other half of the picture, hence the discussion, but Im just saying, what was shown to us there, is just one page.
- inhaler970
Wait, since when did newsweek ever do an amazing job at cropping?
Also, its at the editors discretion. Taking Cheney's statement, placing it on a picture of him stabbing a piece of meat, of something that CLEARLY looks like hes about to eat, or prep a plate, of course its going to look biased. The editor is not an idiot. (or maybe, who knows)
As far as the photographer goes, He got paid for his job, and he should walk away. On his contract it probably states that his photograph can be cropped and used to the publications discretion. The public should become aware of this, but most aren't educated in the matter.
Why I like Magnum's approach to their photography, because if it ever used in print, it has to be printed Full Frame, (no cropping) and Credit given.