Photographer fired?
- Started
- Last post
- 23 Responses
- frichard
Go to this following URL:
http://www.latimes.com/news/cust…I for one cannot understand his firing because every photographs tends to alter his pics in Photoshop, therefore he did it like all of us.
The following is the message i've sent to the feedback of the L.A TIMES at this page:
http://www.latimes.com/services/…"I've just been sent to the following URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/cust…
And although I do recognize that Mr Walsky did some alterations to the orginal photographs, there are no means that justifies his dismissal.
Being a photographer myself, I often rely on software to arrange my compositions to create a more stunning visual effect and evoke a more compelling story.
Mr Walsky did take two separate photographs but didn't create a fake moment in time, his timing was off but he corrected with no harm meant
Simply put, I think his firing is uncalled for and will not go unnoticed by the myriad of photographs out there and we shall remember for ever the way you treated Mr Walsky, who is risking his life to bring to you, in the safety of your Los Angeles bureau, chilling pictures that tells us the story of war."
Please write to LATimes your disagreement if you agree with me that this firing is uncalled for.
- vespa0
it's a tricky issue. If their policy is that no photos must be altered then that is their policy, and must be adhered to in order to maintain their integrity.
You know how powerful photography is, especially with this sort of subject matter. The montage of the 2 photos slightly changes the way you read it - the soldier appears to be more dominating. I'm not saying that photographs ever tell the "truth"; whenever the camera is pointing at something it is pointing away from something else.
And I wouldn't say that firing the photographer is justified, but again it is a tricky issue.
- gradiate0
I completeley disagree with you. In a war situation particlualry there is no need for this image to have been doctored. it brought conotations of aggresion not fair upon this british soldier. The LA times like a lot of other international papers has a no doctoring rule. he had worked there for ages and knew that. In this politically sensitive time he could have caused problems.
everyone in my office was pissed off with him for doing it. it just wasnt necesary. I think he will learn the lesson now.
- fusion410
Its not appropriate for a journalist where reporting is reliant on fact. Modifying kills its credibility.
Unless of course you work for the National Enquirer.
- Danski0
It all depends on whether you're altering a photo to remove a pimple or unsightly wart, from a model shoot, which is an intensely controlled environment, or whether you're trying to show something that didn't ever happen and report it as "news".
- oon0
i think that was justified. altering photos for contrast, colour balance, etc is fine by me, but he changed the context of the photo and passed it off as his own. its not in his discresion to change what he thinks needs changing
- taragee0
the iwo jima flag raising pic was staged....
- Danski0
Exactly. Clarifying my point, you can doctor to make a beautiful image (such as you might want to produce with model photography), but journalistic integrity must be respected when reporting on anything even remotely as serious as massacre. Sorry. War.
- unknown0
its as simple as this:
photo on the left:
a soldier is standing among civilians and is yelling to someone somewhere outside the framephoto 2:
a woman carrying a baby toward a soldier who is not yelling.Doctored photo:
A soldier is yelling at a woman carrying a baby towards him.The doctored photo never happened. It depicts an event that never happened. Its the same as if a reporter reported something that did not happen.
Color correction is like grammar editing, the message stays the same.
When the content of the message changes, the account of what happened changes - in any media.
- unfittoprint0
As a war correspondent he shouldn't change its photos for dramatic purposes.
- slinky0
Photographer does not own the rights to any photos he takes. the photo rights are owned by the Times. He has to live by their rules and their decisions.
Firing was justified... although... sucks for the photographer...
looks like there is a job opening for any of you photographers.
- Luckyitem0
Can his arse.
If photographers who are supposd to be reporting the truth keep altering their images, little by little, the adjustments will become more extreme. War correspondent or not.
Colour correction is justifiable, altering the image is not.
- dstlb0
Thats one ugly woman, he'd have been better off photoshopping out her beard.
- mitsu0
"Colour correction is justifiable, altering the image is not. "
agreed. if there was any exceptions to this policy, the grey area would give too much opportunity for false reporting.
sucks to be him. but at least his last photo made front page.
- js_0
as a photographic journalist you have a responsibilty to report the truth, plain and simple. any alteration is not allowed when trying to present a journalistic story, and if you allow "compositional alterations" then you open the floodgates for more serious alterations.
Just as journalists have a duty to report in their own words exactly what they see, and keep it unbiased, as to allow the reader to form his/her own opinions, so is the same for a photographer.
- taragee0
"Just as journalists have a duty to report in their own words exactly what they see, and keep it unbiased, as to allow the reader to form his/her own opinions, so is the same for a photographer. " just curious - do you all believe that to be true?
- Bluejam0
You don't alter photography.
Especially now as the two sides (pro and anti) of this war are waging an 'information' war in order to capture the hearts and minds of the viewing public.
It was also interesting to see that last night whilst CNN were showing live pictures of a battle just outside the airport, the reporter was acknowledging that the area was not secure. FOX were blasting out "Coalition controls airport".
Words are just as important as pictures, especially when you only have minute before a commercial break.
- js_0
do i believe the responsibility is legit and should be held, yes.
do i believe the rules are bent and damn near broke off, absolutely. but that doesn't mean its acceptable.
- sexypixel0
If this guys got caught doing it, we have to ask how many others are doing it. Has he been made a scape goat so others can break the rules? Am I paranoid? yes I am.
- lind0
I work for a fairly famous photojournalist (as the webmaster for his site) so this story was pretty interesting.
In photojournalism, photos shouldn't be altered -- including covering up face blemishes. Essentially, it's journalism told through pictures.
What the LA Times photojournalist did was really stupid.
- Sapphire0
i would agree with la times, they are merely abiding to their own policies.