Screenshots

The nagging questions should really be: Does his edited pic change anything, context, perception, whatever?

JEFF OOI says: Or it's more than ALL THE ABOVE? Read NPPA Statement of Principle on Digital Manipulation Code of Ethics again. An apprentice cook like you want to meddle with bolts and nuts in a mechanic's workshop? Or an alchemist's lab?

First, they take the background out, since it doesn't matters.

Then, they edit the photo as they wanted, since it doesn't matter.

Isn't it similar to power corruptions?

I say put it at rest. I believe that this practise is rampant everywhere, which include slimming advertisement showing how slim the model is, whereas they are not that slim. As long as it doesn't alter the meaning, I think it should be fine. And how about the advertisement showing the fairness of a model's armpit. Do you think it is real mah?

Minor correction, Jeff - it should be Bazuki with a "z". He was my college mate way back when. My 15 minutes, so to speak!

In this case, I see it as a simple case of one-upsmanship over the competition (on the part of BH). However, since the original is copyrighted by Reuters, I wonder if this would open BH up to possible legal action?

But the question remains, though - how much of what we see in the media (locally or abroad) has been digitally manipulated?

It is SO SAD that EDUCATED Malaysians CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY NEWS PICTURES should NOT be manipulated! Reuters have a policy just like AP and AFP, caught with manipulation, you are GONE! BYE! SACKED! Using a "slimming model" argument just
make me boil... Malaysian mentality ka? I rest my case!

After examinating the hi res pdf I think this case is just like the Umi picture that appeared in The Star. Some smart alick "person" (could be artist or editor) gave permission to have those jokers CLONED OUT. I do not think Bazuki is so silly as laying his Reuters career on the line. Caome on Reuters, we need an answer!

Digital technology should come out with some mechanism that protects the picture from being edited by third party, shouldn't they?

This also will protect the integrity of all journalist, in case the artists from the press decide to alter the picture without the knowledge of the photographer!?

CY Leow, i am behind you on this issue.

I admire photographs as they tell a million words and they don't lie (usually). I have been feeling cheated and am quite doubtful now eversince learning that photos are being doctored rampantly.

Anyone heard of ETHICS?

Thanks Doc! Sad eh... not only in the media, ETHICS are lacking EVERYWHERE ;-(

cyleow,

Aiyah, relaxlah of course I understand why the picture should be published as it is, not ammended in any other way. The question is it is already happening everywhere, do we want to get upset over this whilst ignoring the many others? As long as it is harmful, it is okaylah.. however that is an opinion from a pure layman. Having said that, I can understand that your profession may state otherwise.

And finally lets wait for Reuter's answer for this! Lets see if Reuter stay true to its professionalism.

Cince the posting here cant be edited, the word 'harmful' should be read 'not harmful' in the posting above.

It is less about what is harmful or not. It is more about ethics. As it is, we can already see people beginning to okay it. Give us Malaysians ten more years and soon we'll find it okay to do almost anything. Natural progression.

> Is photo-journalism all about image cropping or wholesale digital manipulation? How do you present imagery to chronicle history in a newspaper of records?

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. A photo can be a relic for the future to reflect how the past is like.

But how do we know that photos from the past are not manipulated in some way? Either through photography or publishing.

Unless its a candid photo, then I would agree that the photo should have been left untouched. Photos that depict a presentation are mostly manipulated, either through people posing in such a way, or light being reflected in such a way to make the photo more appealing.

Personally, I'm not that keen on digital manipulation in ways that it alter the naturalness of the scene. But it can be very convenient in doing repair to the photo, such as color correction or sharpening certain feature.

syedhs, advertising is one thing, news photos are another. Ads are meant to convince (some say deceive) and a certain level of manipulation is expected. News photos are meant to report things as they happened... which means you don't expect manipulation.

Ethics and principles seem so "thin" nowadays people don't (appear to) consider it important until it involves the legal status of their claims or when their lives or livelihood depend on it. Even film printed photos can be manipulated (except for the negatives). I suppose the only pictures that can stand as support evidence in court are polaroid shots.

You are mostly correct LC, it is NEARLY impossible to tamper a Polaroid prints; thus it is a DENTIST BEST FRIEND to protect themself against LITIGATION from their patient!

According to Polariod:
"While digital images can be manipulated, Polaroid instant prints are first generation images which are tamper-proof – in fact the images are totally sealed and are near impossible to alter. Once submitted with the exact date and time labelled on their characteristic white border, a Polaroid print offers irrefutable evidence."

Professional , i have known bazuki for a few years and have never ,never , have known him to manipulate pictures . the berita harian pix was done by the NSTP GROUP of artists , the original REUTERS PIX which i saw ,,was as it was shot.if anybody deserves a fcuking here ,its the nstp EDITOR.ethically,professionally ,bazuki didnt do shit to the pix. CY , take a break ,dont end up like MGG Pillai (bitter sad old man )thank god ANSELL ADAMS aint around.

Hello Serpico... why get so work up? Did I not say I do not think Bazuki did it? Please don't make us laugh by saying he "NEVER NEVER"...all photogs do some manipulations sometimes but we don't do to news pictures.
Oh... I am having a GREAT BREAK, why do u think I am in New Zealand? Ha ha ha...get a life my friend :-)

Wah wah, so nice to see photographers got riled up after some few comments.

I wanna know, do news photographers really edit their pics to be put into the paper ah? By edit, I mean to upload, position, crop, whatever that's not about taking photos... How many?

My guess would be none.

From Jeff punya link:
, we believe it is wrong to alter the content of a photograph in any way that deceives the public.

As photojournalists, we have the responsibility to document society and to preserve its images as a matter of historical record

Really, if historical records is really that important, then I would choose that edited pic than the pic that looks like the guy at the back trying to gigit Badawi punya tangan. Like you said Jeff, nobody got any good picture, at least nothing worth preserving.

What does the content of the edited pic tells us sooo differently than the unedited one? that Badawi was alone at the stage? Nope.

Envo Diesel, is a big big thing. A lot bigger than hidung tinggi photographers.

If you photophanatics (sorry :p) don't like to compare this with the slimming ad, then why compare this with putting piramid belakang some camel?

JEFF OOI says: While we are on a serious topic, you are talking plain nonsense. Go back to your kitchen please.We don't suffer fools here.

I'm with C-Fu on this. Sure it might violate some digital manipulation photography code/ethics and whilst I can perhaps understand why thats so important to a professional photographer, to a layman this is nothing beyond making a mountain out of a molehill. The two pictures are different but only in form not in substance. As for the "if we condone this, then what next" or better known as the slippery slope argument, thats a desperate argument which cant be proven either way. We have been granted the rational to distinguish what is acceptable and what is not and I believe we will use that ability wisely.

JEFF OOI says: Let us take this discourse to another level. To make ity easy for people who are not practitioners in the profession of press photogs, please list out out your Do's and Don'ts. But do not forget, here we are talking about press photos, and not advertising or creative graphics. Here, we are talking about ethics. And ethics are not as kid-play as personal inclinations for likes or dislikes - yes, your siding here or siding there is not a consequence of this debate. It, on the other hand, involves a community of practice, hence it involves some level of moral yardsticks. Western and Oriental yardsticks may differ due to the different cultural nuances, but the still is the lowest basics of ethics that are universal by nature. Your Do's and Don'ts will thus have to relate to this basic form of Code of Ethics. An authoritative reference is the NPPA Statement of Principle on Digital Manipulation Code of Ethics. Tomorrow, I will publish a statement by Reuters. We need to respect what the professional practitioners believe in for the kind of job they do.

In spite of some arguments, I am still of the opinion that a photograph in the news should be as it is. If you want to change it into a picture of a different meaning to tell a different story, use it for ads or art. Or you put it in cartoon or drawing form. Everybody knows you're making a commercial or creating an illusion. That way you're not lying, telling half-truths, or spinning your news. Bullshitting is unacceptable in whatever form.

Allright I'll take the gauntlet that was thrown by Jeff on listing the Do's and the Don'ts. Obviously this is from the common man perspective not someone professionally involved in photography. I understand they can be quite different but both sides need to understand the differing perspectives.

The layman Do's and Don'ts

1) You can manipulate pictures as long as it does not have the effect of manipulating the public to see what is originally not in the picture or to not see what is originally in the picture which substantially conveys a different meaning.

2) The manipulation must not have the intent of maliciously manipulating the public or giving a substantially different meaning than what the original picture would have otherwise.

To those familiar with criminal law, I've just described 1) actus reus i.e action and 2) men's rea i.e the mental state, two basic ingredients of most criminal acts which I think is a useful yardstick to use.

3) If a picture is to describe a historical event where exact details are important, then no manipulation is acceptable.

There very short and easy.

To illustrate my point, picture of PM holding a petrol pump where geeky onlookers or over excited ministers eager to hog the limelight are excluded by manipulation is cool. But a picture of a demonstration where the numbers in the crowd are decreased or increased to convey the idea that the demonstration is less or more supported by the public is not acceptable.

Yes Jeff. I'm a fool, like others, simply because we are not photogs or fullblown journalists (are you a journalist for writing a blog, jeff? I am one too! :D j/k).

JEFF OOI says: This is not an issue about foolf. It's about how willing we are to understand the ethics that professional press photogs hold so dear to themselves.

This fool still wants to know wether photographers do more than send their pics to the office. I just thought since you're in-the-know lah.

As ethic goes, how ethical issit calling me a kitchenhand la, fool la? I know la this is your blog and all.

JEFF OOI says: That's because I purposely wanted to provoke you, to make you angry even, so that you can come back with better arguments. I think you are capable if better arguments if you stay on course on the topic.

Oh and as for Reuters are concerned, they can kiss my backside after they stop labelling people terrorists. Ethics konon! But this is my beef with them lar, not trying to kumpul my gang ar :D

JEFF OOI says: See you go off topic again. How are we going to have meaningful discourse if you go OT so often?You are making a mockery of this serious topic.

Oh I just thought of point no 4 for the layman's Do's and Don'ts whilst in the shower:-)

4) For accountability sake and to satisfy people who for some reason simply must know when a picture is manipulated, everytime a manipulated picture is printed, a caption that says "picture digitally manipulated but does not alter meaning and message of the picture" and followed by the innitials of the person who did the manipulation. The original picture must also be kept safely for a certain period of time such the public may have access to it if they so wish.

Sunny,

Your #4 comment will be the deathknell of any media organisation 'cos it will convey the message that this picture is factually incorrect.

Oh, man, they're at it again.

For God's sake, it's not like they edited the photos to make the PM have extra boobs or grow horns.

I'm with Sunny and C-Fu on this.

I don't think it's wrong to edit the pictures unless there are some obvious intent to distort major facts or context.

Why is this even an issue?

Oh, man, they're at it again.

For God's sake, it's not like they edited the photos to make the PM have extra boobs or grow horns.

I'm with Sunny and C-Fu on this.

I don't think it's wrong to edit the pictures unless there are some obvious intent to distort major facts or context.

Why is this even an issue?

Trashed, I can see ur point, but you cant have accountability without revealing the truth. I think the caption idea strikes a good balance. On one hand, hopefully it will discourage people from manipulating photos and use original shots instead but if they have to for good reasons, then the public will always know the truth.

Hi LC_Teh

I agree with your viewpoints.

Photo-Journalism is a professional job with a moral responsibility - telling the truth and nothing but the truth.

Photography for ads is an art - can tell half-truths, sometimes no-truths.

If I had been one of those 'surgically' removed from the photo, I would call that an insult. If the media house does not like my face, then do not use the photo.

Hi Jeff

C-Fu has his right of opinion.

I'm sure there are things I write in this blog that rub people the wrong way. Just that I'm grateful to you and your readers for giving me a chance to say my piece.

not many pixmen understand news ethics, below some common ones,

no cheating-if its a file says it is file, yesterday picture is a file

never create a scenes, never incite, never instigate

no posing-do not ask your subject to act for you as you are not the news maker, you missed it you missed it.

choose your position-good news men plan his shots but
don't kill or be killed in order to get a good picture

do not obstruct on purpose to other pixmen in order to scoop

never accept gifts so as not be bias

edit..news foto

you can touch up if the picture is dirty or make it looks brighter or darker

you can edit the picture to exclude something or focus on something but no, no, no, add or minus of things even a tiny mole!!!

cheers!

Yeah... this is not an advertisement about Envo Diesel and Pak Lah the model, but a history event. And any pictures of an event in the history should reveal as it is.

I just couldn't understand, maybe the newspaper can tell me, why is it so important to edit that picture to the extend of removing the people in the historical event? Does that make your paper sell better?

I know these people are "small fly", but a history event is a history event, erasing them means you're changing the history.

Who controls the past controls the future.

Who controls the present controls the past.

George Orwell, 1984

If go by George Orwell,

Yap Ah Loy (葉亞來) alias Yap Tet Loy alias Yap Mao Lan, the founder of Kuala Lumpur is not Yeap Ah Loy or Yap Ah Looi.

For century, Yap is recognized as the founder of Kuala Lumpur in history book.

Hopefully no one try to change that.

JEFF OOI says: This commentary blatant OT vis-a-via blog topic.

hihi, jeff,

the spirit is there.

anyway very interesting and useful discussion

cheers!