View Full Version : Racer magazine Fakes Photo
If they don't have any disdain for lying with photos, then they don't have any integrity. If I want to read fiction, I will. I didn't beleive that Racer magazine was a ficticious source. Now that I know what it is, I will not subscribe to it. That is not why I was receiving it, I thought it was a news type magazine not an entertainment rag.
So, they are ragging on the irl in the article, can I take it that the text has any validity to it now that I know that the editors aren't on the up and up?
Hell no.
racer2c
02-07-05, 05:31 PM
It's a photo of an IRL grandstand in which they rip the IRL.
People are whining about the obvious designed photo and disregarding the article.
Again, seperate issues and your point doens't make sense anyway.
It's a photo of an IRL grandstand in which they rip the IRL.
People are whining about the obvious designed photo and disregarding the article.
I couldn't care less what the article says. I couldn't care less if Racer has an IRL bias or not. The single issue at hand is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. Motive is irrelavant. Journalists have a much more important job than just "reporting the news." They are the front-line historians. Years from now, when future historians want to learn about this time period, they will read the newspapers and magazines that were published at this time. That is why we have such a tremendous responsibility to make sure we do not misrepresent the facts in any way, shape or form.
Can you imagine if they did that on the cover that focused on Champ Car how it would detract from the story? People would be guessing what was altered at every photo and not focusing on the article. Which in that case was a great give and take between Tracy and Bourdais on different questions.
If the phrase "altered photo" has negative connotations, then use "artwork created by Racer" to covey the fact that the image is not real.
TravelGal
02-07-05, 05:54 PM
I couldn't care less what the article says. I couldn't care less if Racer has an IRL bias or not. The single issue at hand is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. Motive is irrelavant. Journalists have a much more important job than just "reporting the news." They are the front-line historians. Years from now, when future historians want to learn about this time period, they will read the newspapers and magazines that were published at this time. That is why we have such a tremendous responsibility to make sure we do not misrepresent the facts in any way, shape or form.
This is SO to the point. Thank you rabbit. You are absolutely TOPS in my book.
TravelGal
02-07-05, 05:55 PM
If the phrase "altered photo" has negative connotations, then use "artwork created by Racer" to covey the fact that the image is not real.
Another excellent observation.
Theycould handle this correctly if they wanted to. They just don't.
If the phrase "altered photo" has negative connotations, then use "artwork created by Racer" to covey the fact that the image is not real.
Usually the term used is, "Photo Illustration."
And the difference between the Bourdais thing and this one is that for the Bourdais shots, they just put two photos side by side. They didn't actually modify them.
I'd be curious to know what other photos Racer has "modified" in the recent past.
I remember when Issue 1 of Racer hit the stands, the photos were what sold me on the magazine. I could get news anywhere, but Racer really stood out because of the quality of the photos (and even the paper it was printed on.) Every issue looked like something you'd be proud to have on your coffee table.
The quality has definately declined in the last few years - especially after the magazine was sold. They seem to have lost all connection to who they are. And its a shame, really.
Just got this reply from Racer...
Hey, lighten up folks. I love a conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but I’m afraid you’re completely wide of the mark if you think this was done for ulterior motives.
RACER’s art director (a man wholly disinterested in the politics of racing) used limited Photoshop cloning for aesthetic reasons, i.e., to fill up the frame, and certainly not to make some quasi-political statement. Whether it’s cloning sky, crowds, asphalt or grass, it’s a common and, in our opinion, not unethical technique when used purely for design reasons (as it was in this specific case). Besides, had we done this with any politically driven motives in mind, I think we’d at least have attempted to cover our tracks with a little more finesse and subtlety.
In our Sebastien Bourdais piece in the same issue as the IRL feature you refer to, we’ve morphed two images into the lead spread, but that doesn’t mean we’re insinuating he’s been cloned.
And, as a matter of interest, the Champ Car cover from November’s RACER is also a composite of two separate images (the result being an exciting and dynamic image, not a politically motivated one).
It is not the policy of RACER magazine to change images to alter the context or meaning of a picture for political or sensationalist or morally dubious reasons. If you believe on this occasion that we have, we respect your right to hold that view, but stress once again that it was absolutely not the case.
We appreciate, understand and respect the fact that the IRL/Champ car split continues to be a source of strongly held and passionate opinions among RACER’s readers. Indeed, our recurring and sustained editorial stance in RACER is that the split has damaged U.S. open-wheel racing and we would dearly love to see a single top-level series. In the meantime, if you take the time to look through a few issues of RACER, we hope you’ll see that we treat both series even handedly, both on page counts and in our overall editorial tone. Naturally, and quite understandably, that will not be to the satisfaction of those readers who wish us to take a specific side.
I thank you for your interest in RACER magazine and hope that I have clarified this matter.
Laurence Foster,
Editor-in-chief
So I guess the answer is they are hacks
Always nice to put a face with a name. And by the looks of it, this photo should have been 'shopped also.
http://www.racer.com/admin/uploaded/editors/laurence.jpg
I couldn't care less what the article says. I couldn't care less if Racer has an IRL bias or not. The single issue at hand is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. Motive is irrelavant. Journalists have a much more important job than just "reporting the news." They are the front-line historians. Years from now, when future historians want to learn about this time period, they will read the newspapers and magazines that were published at this time. That is why we have such a tremendous responsibility to make sure we do not misrepresent the facts in any way, shape or form.
It's a racing rag. So they photoshop a filled grandstand and not make it fuller, just taller, and an OBVIOUS photoshop to boot and even historians of the future will get the obvious. They photoshop Paul Tracy side by side in November, when in reality Paul was dusted in 04'.
Meanwhile where integrity matters, the truthful reporting of Chevyworth and the "anti-leasing sentiment faded from the leagues founding principles" (Honda bought off those principles) is not an issue, because the photo is the issue.
Why does the photo carry more weight? Because you want it to. Not because it does. It wasn't news, it wasn't what the article was about. It was an obvious photoshop. Page filler, nothing more. Hang the IRL if you want, but hang them with a rope, not a thread.
So sink my ship, I can rally behind the fake photo and ignore the article, or read the article and ignore the obvious. If anything good comes from this maybe RACER will designate a "photo design" from an actual "photograph".
Usually the term used is, "Photo Illustration."
And the difference between the Bourdais thing and this one is that for the Bourdais shots, they just put two photos side by side. They didn't actually modify them.
He was jesting In our Sebastien Bourdais piece in the same issue as the IRL feature you refer to, we’ve morphed two images into the lead spread, but that doesn’t mean we’re insinuating he’s been cloned.. But they did modify the November cover with Champ Cars.
RaceGrrl
02-07-05, 06:27 PM
If anything good comes from this maybe RACER will designate a "photo design" from an actual "photograph".
That would be perfectly fine with me. In regard to "photo design" there are plenty of effects available in photoshop that could have been used artistically "enhance" the photo without adding to the actual content. It was the blatant attempt to make it appear REAL that I have a problem with.
It's a racing rag. So they photoshop a filled grandstand and not make it fuller, just taller, and an OBVIOUS photoshop to boot and even historians of the future will get the obvious. They photoshop Paul Tracy side by side in November, when in reality Paul was dusted in 04'.
Meanwhile where integrity matters, the truthful reporting of Chevyworth and the "anti-leasing sentiment faded from the leagues founding principles" (Honda bought off those principles) is not an issue, because the photo is the issue.
Why does the photo carry more weight? Because you want it to. Not because it does. It wasn't news, it wasn't what the article was about. It was an obvious photoshop. Page filler, nothing more. Hang the IRL if you want, but hang them with a rope, not a thread.
So sink my ship, I can rally behind the fake photo and ignore the article, or read the article and ignore the obvious. If anything good comes from this maybe RACER will designate a "photo design" from an actual "photograph".
You're still missing the point.
Methanolandbrats
02-07-05, 06:47 PM
The photo carries a lot of weight because graphics are what grab people first and drive sales. That is why magazine cover and top of page one newspaper photo selection is so important. As far as I know, Racer bills itself as a high-end motorsport magazine and unless they want to lower themselves to the level of a tabloid, they should not be altering the work of photojournalists.
sundaydriver2
02-07-05, 06:54 PM
RACER’s art director (a man wholly disinterested in the politics of racing) used limited Photoshop cloning for aesthetic reasons, i.e., to fill up the frame, and certainly not to make some quasi-political statement.
Complete BS.
He changed the picture for "aesthetic reasons". Yeah right. There's no reason to fill up the frame. The original picture is fine the way it is.
Andrew Longman
02-07-05, 06:55 PM
You're still missing the point.
Yes and I think many here are missing the larger point.
Racer messed up. They may not think so, but they did. Anything they do that draws this much attention to their integrity on this and other forums is not good. The best defense they (and others on various forums) can give is they didn't mean anything by it and it doesn't matter anyway. Well that's not cutting it, based of the pages of comments here and elsewhere.
Granted, its a niche magazine in a small market where many already didn't trust them.And open wheel racing has many more important stories to cover. But if they were faced with the same choice again tomorrow I'll bet they wouldn't make the same decision.
As for whether this was part of come grand plan or symptomatic of some unconscious pro IRL bias I guess we'll never know. And that's really the only point RACER should be worried about.
TorontoWorker
02-07-05, 09:42 PM
And all this fancy work with photoshop makes me want to run out and buy this mag...why? :shakehead
That would be perfectly fine with me. In regard to "photo design" there are plenty of effects available in photoshop that could have been used artistically "enhance" the photo without adding to the actual content. It was the blatant attempt to make it appear REAL that I have a problem with.
It was a bad attempt, so bad it was blatant, but I disagree that anybody strived to make it "appear REAL". Let's be honest. It doesn't look real, it never did. I would be shocked if anybody didn't notice it. So much so that it's obvious that the intent wasn't to deceive but darken the corner. If the idea was to deceive, there are enough tools, enough photos, enough ways to do so without having it stick out like a sore thumb.
I think their explanation was exactly what I expected. Because their intent is what I expected it to be.
I also think that if the article was on the attendance of the sport, comparisons between the two series, the health of Nazareth as a venue, then my opinion would be different.
The photo caption states: Tomas Scheckter and Panther Racing want-to, expect-in 2005 Scheckter heading the IRL Indy Car Series pack on a regular basis." Since he didn't lead a lap in 2004 there it's a good thing they didn't say he was in the lead at the time of the photo.
racer2c
02-07-05, 10:16 PM
It was a bad attempt, so bad it was blatant, but I disagree that anybody strived to make it "appear REAL". Let's be honest. It doesn't look real, it never did. ...
The only thing that doesn't appear to be obviously 'real' is the spotlight effect on the Panther car. Two words at the bottom of the picture would have saved them the embarrassment...'Fictional depiction'.
pineapple
02-07-05, 11:03 PM
RACER’s art director (a man wholly disinterested in the politics of racing) used limited Photoshop cloning for aesthetic reasons, i.e., to fill up the frame, and certainly not to make some quasi-political statement. Whether it’s cloning sky, crowds, asphalt or grass, it’s a common and, in our opinion, not unethical technique when used purely for design reasons (as it was in this specific case). Besides, had we done this with any politically driven motives in mind, I think we’d at least have attempted to cover our tracks with a little more finesse and subtlety.
He must not have gotten the message that this was not about the "politics of racing" but about the fact that they faked a photo and tried to pass it off as the real thing. If he thinks this is OK, then the photo credits in the mag's index should be revised -- the photog should not be credited with taking a "limited Photoshop cloning" picture.
No excuses can justify this blunder.
racer2c
02-07-05, 11:21 PM
The Gomers are blaming us for making a mountain out of a mole hill when in actuality it is the fans of the IRl who should be up in arms over this. If I were in their shoes I would despise the manipulation of photos in an effort to portray their series in a flattering light. If they did this to a Champ Car photo I would be extremely pissed, no matter how many fans were in the stands of hte original photo. The gomers need to stand up for their series instead of shoddy journalism. But they're not called gomers for nuthin'. They loved the overlays on the stands in their Northern Light days… :gomer:
Thanks, Andrew, for getting Racer's position on this. I'm glad I'm not wasting any money on Racer.
If it's Racer's editorial policy to alter photographs to make them more aesthetically pleasing, that's their choice. But ethically I think they have an obligation to make that clear to their readers. And no, one person's opinion that the modification is obvious is not sufficient to free them of this obligation. That's far too slippery a slope to be playing on so casually. That's exactly the reason real journalists take such a hard line on such things.
Evidently Racer isn't interested in presenting reality. They're interested in presenting an aesthetically pleasing fantasy that vaguely resembles the sport that we follow. In that sense the "Playboy" anology is very apt.
Amanda B.'s Mom
02-08-05, 12:43 AM
Definately agree. As a professional photographer, it is only ethiccal to depict an altered photo as such. Granted I do some photoshopping th my photos. A little sharopening, removing distracting background features, etc. But when a photo is altered to this extent, there should be a discliamer on it.
Racedrs indifference to this serious matter should not be taken lightly.
I also wonderif Racer wants to have the image of being a "tabloid" in the racing magazine market?
RacinM3
02-08-05, 01:02 AM
The longer this thread goes on the more I yearn for On Track magazine to come back.
Redwing
02-08-05, 09:50 AM
The longer this thread goes on the more I yearn for On Track magazine to come back.
I was thinking the same thing. It's a mystery that On Track died because, as they claimed, the Internet made them obsolete, but Racer is still around with info that is just as dated. That's why I dropped them.
I was thinking the same thing. It's a mystery that On Track died because, as they claimed, the Internet made them obsolete, but Racer is still around with info that is just as dated. That's why I dropped them.
Really. It was to the point with me that I got it for the photos.
:rolleyes:
IMO, I don't think it was an agenda as much as it was an idiot photo editor who decided to pretty-up a shot and, at the same time, show off his "shopping" skills. Duh... :thumdown:
Andrew Longman
02-08-05, 11:18 AM
Evidently Racer isn't interested in presenting reality. They're interested in presenting an aesthetically pleasing fantasy that vaguely resembles the sport that we follow. In that sense the "Playboy" anology is very apt.
That might be a little harsh... but really funny.
RaceGrrl
02-08-05, 11:26 AM
There's no question that the net has made some print venues obsolete. Even so, there is nothing like holding a glossy magazine in your hand to look at photos- somehow the photo onscreen doesn't appeal to me as much. If I felt like Racer still had any integrity, we might have continued our subscription, just for the "feel" of browsing it. However, once they became a vehicle for IRL propaganda, I'm not going to support them, no matter HOW good the CCWS photos are.
We have enough members here who are good photographers and who share their work with us to give me my "fix" of CCWS pics. For those of you who do post your photos here, THANKS. :thumbup:
Dirty Sanchez
02-08-05, 01:02 PM
I'm a little bit on the fence on this one. I don't believe there was any malicious intent here on the part of RACER. I think the most they are guilty of is probably some lazy editing/layout design. I can't believe there isn't another unedited photo out there that couldn't be used in place of this one. Perhaps they need to hire some new photogs? :D
The American open wheel "climate" is at best extremely volatile. I think RACER could probably have seen something like this coming if they were paying attention to the rest of the "discussion" on both sides.
Andrew Longman
02-08-05, 01:40 PM
I'm a little bit on the fence on this one. I don't believe there was any malicious intent here on the part of RACER. I think the most they are guilty of is probably some lazy editing/layout design. I can't believe there isn't another unedited photo out there that couldn't be used in place of this one. Perhaps they need to hire some new photogs? :D
The American open wheel "climate" is at best extremely volatile. I think RACER could probably have seen something like this coming if they were paying attention to the rest of the "discussion" on both sides.
Well they are paying attention now.
By their own admission the art director has no political interest in the sport and probably had no clue how what he was doing would be received. And the management underestimated the journalistic standards his niche sport magazine would be held to, so he didn't scrutinize the photos as would, say, the editor of Newsweek.
Fair or not (and I think it is), they would have to be complete idiots or blindly arrogant or both to not pay closer attention in the future
My $0.02 Cdn...
1) IMHO, the altering done falls WAY more firmly on the side of 'painting an alternate reality' than graphic design, regardless of motive. Adding that many rows - packed full, no less - so it appears like we're looking at a venue the size of a soccer stadium just doesn't have the same ring as cloning a driver for a goofy pic...
2) Personally, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the alterations were done with ulterior motives.
3) On the other hand, if the graphics editor did it merely to look 'cool'...
a) altering the photo without permission is kinda, um, wrong...in most quarters, I'd think...and,
b) how could anyone not understand the implications??!! My 12 yr old would understand the implications!!! Sheesh...
oddlycalm
02-08-05, 04:32 PM
By their own admission the art director has no political interest in the sport and probably had no clue how what he was doing would be received. And the management underestimated the journalistic standards his niche sport magazine would be held to, so he didn't scrutinize the photos as would, say, the editor of Newsweek. I'm sure you're right, but doing the wrong thing compounded by then claiming "we do it all the time" when confronted seems pretty weak. Those suggesting that there needs to be a caption indicating the photo is intended as artwork, not fact, are correct. Long term, this is the only way for this periodical, as well as others, to maintain anything beyond simple entertainment value.
Digital editing tools are powerful, so we shouldn't be surprised when they are misused by those lacking ethical compass. Those of us that spend time on the net see it every day. Some see it as innocent artistic license, but it's really not. The comment from nrc is correct (and funny) in the sense that Playboy is one of the major contributors to the problem. In the past, only organizations like Playboy had the money and the staff to do extensive photo alteration, now everybody has access to the tools. The message Playboy sent is clear, and the altered and faked pictures on the net are rife.
Many film directors have proven themselves to be self-indulgent oafs by producing silly bombastic sound tracks that digital editing tools and surround sound make possible. In stylized fiction, the only harm is to good taste. However, where is the line to be drawn?
I find compelling the arguement that such tools applied to documentary films have made them vastly more popular while reducing their integrity and ultimately their credibility. If you seek to document something, yet you alter the image and the sound, what is it that you are presenting, fiction or fact? As the saying goes, people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own set of facts. If it's opinion, but it's presented as fact, then it's a lie pure and simple.
Racer Magazine might feel the reaction here is unreasonable, but in a society where editorial and entertainment is routinely passed off as hard news, I'd suggest that people correctly have the bovine manure detectors turned up to full sensitivity and are tired of hearing the alarm going off.
oc
Digital editing tools are powerful, so we shouldn't be surprised when they are misused by those lacking ethical compass. Those of us that spend time on the net see it every day. Some see it as innocent artistic license, but it's really not. The comment from nrc is correct (and funny) in the sense that Playboy is one of the major contributors to the problem. In the past, only organizations like Playboy had the money and the staff to do extensive photo alteration, now everybody has access to the tools. The message Playboy sent is clear, and the altered and faked pictures on the net are rife.
Many film directors have proven themselves to be self-indulgent oafs by producing silly bombastic sound tracks that digital editing tools and surround sound make possible. In stylized fiction, the only harm is to good taste. However, where is the line to be drawn?
I find compelling the arguement that such tools applied to documentary films have made them vastly more popular while reducing their integrity and ultimately their credibility. If you seek to document something, yet you alter the image and the sound, what is it that you are presenting, fiction or fact? As the saying goes, people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own set of facts. If it's opinion, but it's presented as fact, then it's a lie pure and simple.
Racer Magazine might feel the reaction here is unreasonable, but in a society where editorial and entertainment is routinely passed off as hard news, I'd suggest that people correctly have the bovine manure detectors turned up to full sensitivity and are tired of hearing the alarm going off.
oc
Laser printers became so good at reproducing real money the treasury had to come up with elaborate water marks, foil emblems and threads in the paper to beat them. How say a photographer protect his work. I suppose if the photo was digital they could somehow water mark it, same with a negative or slide.
Sad to think it's come to this. I can see them now at Racer...
"wow, this shot of Schumacher is fantastic but it's missing something."
"Hey, I could shop in a few extra cars behind him to add a little more drama to the shot. It's not really changing anything other than the esthetic look of an already wonderful shot."
"Great, get on it right away it'll be in the next issue."
As for the Playboy angle. It's a male fantasy magazine. Sorry, but most guys who pick that up realize
1. Even beautiful young girls actually have at least one blemish on their body somewhere.
2. You'll never, ever, ever, ever, ever in a gozillion years ever have a chance to ever meet, let alone go out with this nymphet so this is strictly fantasy.
3. These aren't mug shots for Gods sake, meant to be a historical referance for this girl for posterity.
RACER is trying to pose as a leading edge auto racing circular. It has just shot itself in the foot by doing this and has zilch integrity nor could I ever trust them again.
JohnHKart
02-09-05, 07:58 AM
Ethical Editorial Standards.......About two years ago the LA Times fired a photographer for digitally altering a photograph. This was against company policy and I think any self respecting magazine, which I thought Racer was would only do this if they were informing the reader. I can't imagine something like this happening back when John Zimmerman was the editor.
John
From the Guardian:
Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Thursday April 3, 2003
The Guardian
The Los Angeles Times has sacked a battlefront photographer for altering a photograph which showed a British soldier telling Iraqi civilians to take cover from Iraqi fire. The photo appeared on the front page of the newspaper on Monday.
Brian Walski, an experienced news photographer who had been on the LA Times staff since 1998, was contacted by telephone in Iraq by the paper after questions were raised about the photo.
It was noticed that a number of the Iraqi civilians in the background of the picture appeared twice.
According to a statement on the front page of yesterday's LA Times, Walski "acknowledged that he had used his computer to combine elements of two photographs, taken moments apart, in order to improve the composition".
The dramatic photo shows a British soldier manning the Zubayr bridge and cautioning Iraqis to take cover by stretching out his arm. An Iraqi man can be seen in a crouching position clutching his child. The headline beneath the photo read: "In Basra, Panic as a Tactic of War."
Yesterday the LA Times published the two photos that Walski had used to make his single image.
In the original photo where the British soldier is making his gesture, the Iraqi man is looking the other way and is in the background.
In the image that appeared on the front page, the Iraqi man and child have been brought forward to create a more dramatic composition. It is only on close study that it is possible to see that some of the people in the background appear twice.
Walski, an award winning photographer, has covered international stories including the Gulf war, the famine in Somalia, the funeral of Princess Diana and the conflicts in Northern Ireland and Kashmir. An LA Times spokeswoman could not say whether he had left Iraq.
The LA Times, like most big American newspapers, has a policy which forbids the alteration of news photos.
The Guardian has a similar policy. "All the desks are under instructions from the editor not to alter news photos," said Roger Tooth, head of photography at the Guardian.
He said that it was now easier than ever for photographers to alter photos.
pineapple
02-09-05, 11:04 AM
In that sense the "Playboy" anology is very apt.
Needs more airbrush. :)
RaceGrrl
02-09-05, 11:07 AM
There's no doubt that altering photos is ethically questionable, but I personally see a huge difference between altering photos of wartime situations and digitally altering a photograph of a race audience for a racing series that nobody cares about for a magazine that nobody reads. ("nobody" being a relative term)
I agree that it's a slippery slope and unless it is Racer's intent to be seen as a 'fantasy' mag, they need to be as honest as possible in their portrayal of the things they cover. This is annoying and questionable behavior, but it doesn't come close to offending me like the altered war photos did.
RacinM3
02-09-05, 12:57 PM
Hey, lighten up folks. I love a conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but I’m afraid you’re completely wide of the mark if you think this was done for ulterior motives.
This is always a good thing to tell existing, former, and potential customers who are concerned about your integrity. :rolleyes:
.......About two years ago the LA Times fired a photographer for digitally altering a photograph........
http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?p=84761#post84761
JohnHKart
02-09-05, 07:21 PM
Thanks...shame on me for not reading the whole thread.
John
Found commentary here. (http://www.deepthrottle.com/Essays/yellow_journalism.shtml)
Ted
Steve99
02-28-05, 03:22 PM
Found commentary here. (http://www.deepthrottle.com/Essays/yellow_journalism.shtml)
Ted
Good find. :thumbup:
Spicoli
03-01-05, 01:10 AM
Good find. :thumbup:
an excellent read. backed up by proper notes and testimony, not barnharts and nations.
DT rocks, as always.
FYI, Newsweek just created an uproar by Photoshoping Martha Stewart with a body double:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/03/news/newsmakers/martha_photo/index.htm?cnn=yes
-Kevin
eiregosod
03-03-05, 09:59 PM
FYI, Newsweek just created an uproar by Photoshoping Martha Stewart with a body double:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/03/news/newsmakers/martha_photo/index.htm?cnn=yes
-Kevin
welcome to photoshop, the news of tomorrow!
formulaben
03-07-05, 02:44 AM
I cancelled my RACER mag subscription a couple years ago because I thought they were taking a pro-IRL stance. Needless to say, I'm feeling really good right now knowing that I'm not funding this filth.
Napoleon
04-03-05, 11:45 AM
Wow - and I just renewed Racer a few days ago after thinking long and hard about it and now I am sorry.
I like the Playboy analogy. In fact, in a related item, how many of you ever look at the glossy food magazines. You know stuff like Gourmet and Cooking Light. I saw a local writer refer to their photographic style as "food porn" style.
Sean O'Gorman
04-03-05, 11:48 AM
Rnofty, is that you???
Sorry to fire up the wayback machine. But this thread was the first thing I thought of when I read this article (http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/04/toledo01.html).
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/04/images/toledo_four_images_000.jpg
TOLEDO, OH (April 5, 2007) – New questions about news photo manipulation have come up after a high-profile Ohio sporting event that drew multiple photojournalists from large regional daily newspapers on Friday. When pictures by several photojournalists were published prominently on Saturday’s front pages, it was clear that one of the images differed significantly from the others, raising questions about whether the photograph had been digitally altered.
Late today one of the editors of the Toledo Blade confirmed what many had suspected, that a published picture by staff photographer Allan Detrich had indeed been digitally changed.
<snip>
NPPA's Code of Ethics prohibits the digital manipulation of news photographs. “It is tempting to want to correct a flaw in an otherwise significant photograph, but whether it is done by photographer, editor, or lab tech, once a ‘moment’ has been captured on film or on digital media, we no longer have the right to change that image in any way except for minor dodging, burning, or cropping,” NPPA’s Ethics & Standards Committee chairperson John Long said today
“The legs in this photo are annoying, but they are there, in everyone’s frame, and ‘there’ is where they have to remain. Removing small details may be just a little lie, but the reading public does not make such distinctions. Big or small, significant or insignificant, a lie is a lie. And the public does not want to be lied to at all. Our credibility is all we have to offer the public and it must be protected. We cannot change the content of our photographs. We cannot lie.”
devilmaster
04-06-07, 12:43 PM
Hey, lighten up folks...
Love,
Laurence Foster
Editor-in-Chief, Racer Magazine
:rofl:
The last thing Bluffton College wants is national pub with a pic of their boys in a circle with a girl on her knees...
:rofl:
Hesketh
04-09-07, 06:31 AM
There's no doubt that altering photos is ethically questionable, but I personally see a huge difference between altering photos of wartime situations and digitally altering a photograph of a race audience for a racing series that nobody cares about for a magazine that nobody reads. ("nobody" being a relative term)
I agree that it's a slippery slope and unless it is Racer's intent to be seen as a 'fantasy' mag, they need to be as honest as possible in their portrayal of the things they cover. This is annoying and questionable behavior, but it doesn't come close to offending me like the altered war photos did.
There's no slope; it's a cliff. It's not "questionable," it's morally reprehensible. There's no difference: news is news, whether it's politics or sports. You don't alter news photos. It's a clear-cut issue.
Friends of mine used to write for and edit Racer, but left when Haymarket took it over because my friends have ethics. Haymarket doesn't.
FCYTravis
04-09-07, 02:30 PM
There's no slope; it's a cliff. It's not "questionable," it's morally reprehensible. There's no difference: news is news, whether it's politics or sports. You don't alter news photos. It's a clear-cut issue.
A-men.
Andrew Longman
04-09-07, 03:47 PM
There's no slope; it's a cliff. It's not "questionable," it's morally reprehensible. There's no difference: news is news, whether it's politics or sports. You don't alter news photos. It's a clear-cut issue.
Friends of mine used to write for and edit Racer, but left when Haymarket took it over because my friends have ethics. Haymarket doesn't.
My brother was contributing editor for US News & World Report a few years ago. They had/have an ironclad rule: No retouching, period. Not even for photos that are not news photos such as commissioned (i.e., Staged) photos for feature covers they use for special issues such as "Is College Worth It?" (or like the photo in question in the old Racer article) Its the only way to keep the lines from blurring.
formulaben
04-09-07, 11:04 PM
This thread is appropriate right now. I wrote the editor of RACER magazine last week to see if they changed their policy regarding photo touch-ups. In short, the answer is no. :thumdown:
I don't have an issue with adjustments in contrast or brightness, (dodging and burning... do they still do that?) if it means altering the photo to compensate for deficiences of the photographer or the equipment or poor lighting conditions at the time the photo was taken in the field, it's the addition or subtraction of content that should be completely out of bounds.
(dodging and burning... do they still do that?)
Sadly that's a lost art. :(
-Kevin
cameraman
04-10-07, 10:28 AM
Sadly that's a lost art. :(
-Kevin
Ah the simple joys of cutting cardstock in a darkroom...
indyfan31
04-10-07, 06:04 PM
Sadly that's a lost art. :(
-Kevin
As tools they're still available in Photoshop, although I doubt if many users know where they got their names.
TorontoWorker
04-12-07, 09:17 AM
Sadly that's a lost art. :(
-Kevin
I'll see you that and raise you: I used to make silver masks and inter-negs.
EDwardo
04-14-07, 12:48 AM
I'll see you that and raise you: I used to make silver masks and inter-negs.
Back in the mid 1970's I managed a small photo lab. We had a guy who was a master at the art of retouching negatives as well as restoring (or altering) photos before creating internegatives. He was definitely an artist.
Retouching photographs was an art form in Stalinist Soviet Union. Here is a an example.
http://media.hoover.org/images/digest19982_conquest-c.JPG
Defense Commissar Kliment Voroshilov and Premier Vyacheslav Molotov (on the left) stroll along the Moscow-Volga canal with Comrade Stalin and NKVD (secret police) boss Nikolai Yezhov, who was arrested and executed in 1939.
http://media.hoover.org/images/digest19982_conquest-d.JPG
According to the retouched photo, Yezhov never existed.
Digital imaging has virtually replaced film in the past 20 years. Undeniably there are many advantages digital possesses over film such as cost, relative simplicity, storage, and an ability to instantly preview new images. But film has imaging qualities in many ways far superior to digital. In the hands of a skilled photographer, film remains unequaled in its ability to capture light and color. Black and white film photography can be quite astonishing. Anyone who has seen Ansel Adams prints in person will know what I mean.
The ethics of photography as an art form and photography as a news medium are completely different. The Racer magazine altered image presented as a depiction of reality is inexcusable. If it had been clearly identified as a creative depiction altered for artistic effect it would become entirely legitimate.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.