PDA

View Full Version : Racer magazine Fakes Photo



Pages : [1] 2

SurfaceUnits
02-05-05, 07:08 PM
The article in the March issue on Chevy and earl, includes a faked photo purportedly showing an earl crowd.

http://indybooks.net/data/DoctoredEARLCrowd.jpg

The yellow circles repeat things. Look diagonally from bottom left to top right, follow the circles. red circles show the same, fat gomer, could be Jim Wilke or Depender.

nrc
02-05-05, 07:27 PM
Wow. It would be interesting to find out who touched up that photo. Did the IRL provide a touched up photo or did Racer take care of that themselves?

We all know that Racer is simply a advertising supplement under the pretext of a magazine, but if Racer was aware of this sham then their credability has sunk to a new low.

Jag_Warrior
02-05-05, 07:49 PM
Somumabeach! Quite a find.

Did you do the detective work, SurfaceUnits? Someone needs to get the story out on this one.

Steve99
02-05-05, 07:50 PM
What track is that "photo" from?

Dave99
02-05-05, 08:17 PM
I also noticed where it appears there are no breaks in the crowd where aisles should be. Musta been 'bushed by a rookie. Then again there aren't any red hats, so...

Upon further review, it must be a Champ Car crowd. No one is on their feet.


What track is that "photo" from?
Could be from any of them... they're all "sell-outs", right? ;)

Railbird
02-05-05, 08:26 PM
Wow, that's grim.

Editorial integrity anyone?

RaceGrrl
02-05-05, 08:40 PM
It's much worse even than the original photo indicates, and I was just erasing the obvious fakes.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v627/mdcaldwell/Doctoredcrowd.jpg

racer2c
02-05-05, 08:50 PM
This is big.

JoeBob
02-05-05, 09:42 PM
The photo is on pages 52 and 53. The track is Nazareth, the photo credit is: Tyler Barrick - Getty Images.

Dave99
02-05-05, 09:43 PM
Now *that's* painting the IRL fans with a broad brush! :laugh:

JoeBob
02-05-05, 09:48 PM
Here's a small version of the original: http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=51236423&cdi=0

Cam
02-05-05, 09:51 PM
TF meltdown in 5... 4..... 3.......

dando
02-05-05, 09:55 PM
Here's a small version of the original: http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=51236423&cdi=0
The Getty folks will not be pleased about this.


Note: All editorial images subject to the following: For editorial use only. Additional clearance required for commercial, wireless, internet or promotional use, contact your local office. NO NBA, F.A. PREMIER LEAGUE IMAGES MAY BE DOWNLOADED OR USED WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION. AFP IMAGES ARE SUBJECT TO TERRITORIAL RESTRICTIONS. Images may not be altered or modified. Getty Images makes no representations or warranties regarding names, trademarks or logos appearing in the images. See Editorial License Agreement or contact your local office.

Our Design crew works with Getty images, and they do not allow their work to be altered. Period.

-Kevin

nrc
02-05-05, 10:13 PM
I can't imagine that Racer would use the image without permission, but did they have permission to alter it?

RaceGrrl
02-05-05, 10:21 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v627/mdcaldwell/doctoredcombo.jpg

JoeBob
02-05-05, 10:22 PM
It looks like all those "people" are in the stands in Getty's original. Racer just cropped it - which doesn't count as "modifying." (Or did they add rows? Hard to tell)

NismoZ
02-05-05, 10:25 PM
I remember thinking "not Possible" when I 1st saw that crowd but never suspected a scam.

nrc
02-05-05, 10:26 PM
It looks like all those "people" are in the stands in Getty's original. Racer just cropped it - which doesn't count as "modifying." (Or did they add rows? Hard to tell)

Look again. RaceGrrl sized and cropped the original to aproximate the doctored photo. You can see that they've pasted people in to make the stands much taller than they are in the original.

RaceGrrl
02-05-05, 10:27 PM
They definitely added rows. When I had it enlarged in Photoshop, I could see repeats of things in the crowd that were above the visible top level of the stands.

racer2c
02-05-05, 10:32 PM
They definitely added rows. When I had it enlarged in Photoshop, I could see repeats of things in the crowd that were above the visible top level of the stands.

Nice work RaceGrrl. :thumbup:

Racer is due for a retraction on this one. Hoepfully someone can trace it back to Nation.

Dave99
02-05-05, 10:52 PM
I've superimposed both images using the K-wall and cars for reference. If anyone would like the .psd file, lemme know.

The original Getty image is the top layer, ghosted back to 80%. If you toggle it off, you can see the altered image underneath. The difference is amazing!

A must see! :eek:

nrc
02-05-05, 10:57 PM
Not sure how many people could look at a PSD file. Could you turn it into an animated JPEG, PNG or GIF?

Dave99
02-05-05, 11:01 PM
Not sure how many people could look at a PSD file. Could you turn it into an animated JPEG, PNG or GIF?
Sorry but I can not convert to an animated .gif but I'd be happy to send my file to anyone who can, providing they also post it back into this thread. :)

racer2c
02-05-05, 11:13 PM
Sorry but I can not convert to an animated .gif but I'd be happy to send my file to anyone who can, providing they also post it back into this thread. :)

I'll do it. I'll PM my email to you.

Dave99
02-05-05, 11:20 PM
I'll do it. I'll PM my email to you.
Sounds good, r2c. Hope the layered .psd file is all you need. Tweak as needed.... I'll sign off on it. LOL!

racer2c
02-05-05, 11:40 PM
The second file was currupt Dave but I think this gets the job done even thoug it was as fast as I could do it. :)

http://www.interbrella.com/images/EARL@NAZ2animated.gif

Amanda B.'s Mom
02-05-05, 11:46 PM
Pretty amazing......

I am sure there will be some logical explination though :shakehead

JoeBob
02-05-05, 11:48 PM
Consider my earlier post retracted. ;)

At least I'm good as a source of raw evidence. :D

RaceGrrl
02-05-05, 11:49 PM
Yes you are JB. Thanks for that link, btw, although my crummy side by side comparison isn't all fancy like Dave's pics.

racer2c
02-05-05, 11:53 PM
Someone has some 'splainin' to do.

Dave99
02-05-05, 11:58 PM
Looks good, thanks. :)

The top layer set at 80% looks kinda weird. If you want to reset it to 100% that might help. Either way, it's cool. Thanks again.

JB, no retraction neccessary. The two photos were not proportional so without the benefit of layering the two at same-size, "cropping" would be a natural explanation.

Still, there is the airbrushing issue... :shakehead

Jervis Tetch 1
02-06-05, 12:15 AM
A classic example of deceit.

racer2c
02-06-05, 12:23 AM
So who's emailing Racer? :)

JoeBob
02-06-05, 12:28 AM
http://www.racer.com/customer_service.asp

racer2c
02-06-05, 12:41 AM
http://www.racer.com/customer_service.asp

Thanks for the link JB but I think it would be better coming from a subscriber. I dropped mine six years ago.

JoeBob
02-06-05, 12:53 AM
I was kind of thinking they'd have to respond if they got a few dozen questions. :D

Jag_Warrior
02-06-05, 01:13 AM
Well, someone needs to get it to Robin Miller before a certain site has it as a you read it here first "Hot News" item.

SteveH
02-06-05, 01:19 AM
Holy crap. This is absolutely astounding. :thumdown:

Great job finding this, SurfaceUnits. :thumbup:

RaceGrrl
02-06-05, 01:44 AM
Good point, Steve. Thanks SurfaceUnits. It will be interesting to see if anything happens with this.

PS: Thanks, Dave99 :)

Dave99
02-06-05, 01:59 AM
Whomever is on Sentry Patrol at TF need not worry.

It's doubtful their hyper-developed senses could figure out the leg room. :p

Kahauna Dreamer
02-06-05, 02:10 AM
It's much worse even than the original photo indicates, and I was just erasing the obvious fakes.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v627/mdcaldwell/Doctoredcrowd.jpg

Absolutely, RG! That is straight-up clone stamp/pattern stamp in lots of small areas and it looks like the "artist" made a large selection with his or her polygon lasso tool and pasted it in several times. Look for the black-and-white umbrellas going toward the upper right hand corner and about 30 degrees.

RaceGrrl
02-06-05, 02:35 AM
You can almost see a straight line within the cloned pattern where the top of the real stands are and the fake ones begin. Funny... with all this technology, you still can't completely fool the human brain.

Kahauna Dreamer
02-06-05, 03:11 AM
You can almost see a straight line within the cloned pattern where the top of the real stands are and the fake ones begin. Funny... with all this technology, you still can't completely fool the human brain.

http://img43.exs.cx/img43/6638/nazfake20ec.jpg

oddlycalm
02-06-05, 05:50 AM
One depressing aspect is that the goofs that did this didn't think they were doing anything wrong. If they did, they wouldn't have used such an obvious technique.

oc

rabbit
02-06-05, 10:10 AM
Holy *****e. :shakehead

And the media wonders why people constantly question its integrity...

RTKar
02-06-05, 10:12 AM
Can't wait 'til we see the photo of the 33 car grid at the 497.5 :laugh:

rabbit
02-06-05, 10:14 AM
TF's take (http://www.trackforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=54089)

Silly OCers, it was a "graphic design decision," not intended deception. You're all overreacting. :gomer:

Rogue Leader
02-06-05, 11:06 AM
somone should send the photographer a message his pic is being doctored

http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=3822

maybe he has no idea....

Accipiter
02-06-05, 11:06 AM
That is really alarming to see in a magazine that's last saving grace is it's photography.

Railbird
02-06-05, 11:17 AM
You've hit the nail on the head Accipiter, the only reason to pick up that long lead mag is the photos, and now you know they're fake.

Isn't Racer affiliated with the IRL rag?

Methanolandbrats
02-06-05, 11:26 AM
As far as journalistic ethics go, the only thing worse than this is fabricating an entire story. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If this was done while covering a subject anyone cared about, people would be fired. Maybe they will be anyway.

Dave99
02-06-05, 12:27 PM
If there is a disclaimer it should read:

"Just about everyone was harmed in the making of this photo"

:D

Anteater
02-06-05, 12:33 PM
Isn't Racer affiliated with the IRL rag?

Yes--there was a thread about this awhile back.
http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5908

racer2c
02-06-05, 01:01 PM
somone should send the photographer a message his pic is being doctored

http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=3822

maybe he has no idea....


True, I doubt the photographer had anything to do with this. I suspect that it was the design team at Racer who has an interest in potraying the IRL in a flattering light due to their IRL rag they bundle with their subscription. Or this came from the ever desperate IRL front office in a PR pictorial 'package' that they sent to Racer. They should hire a real graphic artist if they going to fake their photos. They can't even do that right!

JoeBob
02-06-05, 01:46 PM
The IRL also hired Racer Magazine to produce sponsorship proposals for them: http://www.indyracingleague.com/insider/archives/1-4/story.php?story_id=38 (That was published well before the 2004 season - which should tell you all you need to know about their title sponsorship search.)

nrc
02-06-05, 01:51 PM
The IRL also hired Racer Magazine to produce sponsorship proposals for them: http://www.indyracingleague.com/insider/archives/1-4/story.php?story_id=38 (That was published well before the 2004 season - which should tell you all you need to know about their title sponsorship search.)

Seems like the folks who were up in arms over Robin Miller getting a paycheck from Champ car while working as a racing journalist would be all over this one.

nrc
02-06-05, 01:53 PM
TF's take (http://http://www.trackforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=54089)

Silly OCers, it was a "graphic design decision," not intended deception. You're all overreacting. :gomer:

Your link is broken. It's got and extra http in it.

racer2c
02-06-05, 02:35 PM
My god that's a hysterical thread on TF. You would think the trial date is already set and the defense is gathering their artillary. Of course it's us IRL 'haters' fault, according to one pompous a$$. Who sez we can't spell good!

Dave99
02-06-05, 02:46 PM
Slight airbrushing of an image to fill a picture window is one thing (and done all the time without consequence). It's quite another to replace a wedge of sky with rows 18 through 35 and all the fans sitting in them. I think the intent is obvious in this case. What's so distracting about showing a little sky anyway?

racer2c- Please check your E-mail.

racer2c
02-06-05, 03:46 PM
Dave sent along another tightened up version of 'the photo'. I did a tweening animated gif for dramatic effect which came out to just over a meg so be patient with the download.

http://www.interbrella.com/images/earlfade.gif

nrc
02-06-05, 03:57 PM
Some folks are comparing this to Playboy altering pictures. So I guess now that Racer is on Tony's payroll they're no longer in the business of presenting reality. They're in the business of presenting fantasy material for IRL fans.

racer2c
02-06-05, 04:06 PM
Exactly nrc. The National Enquirer is famous for their photoshopped pictures of Satan’s face in the billowing smoke and giant babies. So I guess we are witnessing Racer being the automotive equivalent with the IRL being their fat baby/Satan face.

Dave99
02-06-05, 04:22 PM
The difference between the Before and After is very dramatic in terms of interpretation, imo.

http://www.interbrella.com/images/earlfade.gif

From looking at the original image you get a sense of how big the crowd is (not too bad for an Earl race). From the altered image it appears the grandstands continue on up the the Heavens and there are 50 million people in the attendance- the perception of which is something I'm sure the IRL would love potential sponsors to believe actually occurs.

Thanks for your help, racer2c. Now I can stop clicking "refresh" every 30 seconds. ;) :laugh:

jonovision_man
02-06-05, 04:27 PM
Some folks are comparing this to Playboy alterning pictures. So I guess now that Racer is on Tony's payroll they're no longer in the business of presenting reality. They're in the business of presenting fantasy material for IRL fans.

I posted it over at TF and I'll repeat it here... that's really the question, what was the intent.
1) Make the picture look better, or
2) Make the IRL look better

If it was (1), it's still not very good journalism, and doesn't really respect the sensitive nature of the OW fight... they should have known better than to add fuel to the fire.

If it was (2), then it's deception and is completely wrong and has less than zero jourliastict integrity.

Either way, Racer looks bad. Just a question of how bad.

jono

Dave99
02-06-05, 04:37 PM
Some folks are comparing this to Playboy altering pictures. So I guess now that Racer is on Tony's payroll they're... in the business of presenting fantasy material for IRL fans.
That would explain the voluminous number of issues on the floor of the Men's Room stalls at the track. :D

Mr. Vengeance
02-06-05, 05:14 PM
Some folks are comparing this to Playboy altering pictures.

Far cry from airbrushing out a tattoo to airbrushing on an extra dozen breasts...

nrc
02-06-05, 05:25 PM
Far cry from airbrushing out a tattoo to airbrushing on an extra dozen breasts...

Or in this case, a few thousand more boobs.

RaceGrrl
02-06-05, 05:34 PM
:rofl:

TravelGal
02-06-05, 05:57 PM
Or in this case, a few thousand more boobs.

:rofl: :rofl:

I've already written to them. Before travel, I was high up in a major publisher. I was NOT amused. Neither was TravelGuy.

Kahauna Dreamer
02-06-05, 06:12 PM
Hey, if you're going to 'Shop something like that, especially in a worldwide-distributed publication, at least learn how your image tools work and do it freakin' correctly!

:shakehead :gomer:

racer2c
02-06-05, 06:44 PM
I just emailed every IRL sponsor I know informing them that this kind of manipulation is the exact kind of thing that will ruin the sport and that their involvment in this shame of a series makes them guilty by association.

Signed, the idiot witch hunter.

___king Gomers. :gomer: :rofl:

RacinM3
02-07-05, 12:03 AM
Honestly, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't do it to prop up the Earl.

Instead, I'll just hang them on the fact that they purport to be a journalistic magazine, and they doctor photos, thus making them untrustworthy. The subject matter isn't an issue.

I was glad I let my susbscription lapse. Now I'm really glad I don't have to ask for a refund on any remaining issues had I re-subscribed.

CARTNUT
02-07-05, 03:30 AM
Exactly nrc. The National Enquirer is famous for their photoshopped pictures of Satan’s face in the billowing smoke and giant babies. So I guess we are witnessing Racer being the automotive equivalent with the IRL being their fat baby/Satan face.

OH HOLY CRAP!!!

http://images.snapfish.com/342%3A98%3B923232%7Ffp63%3Dot%3E2343%3D%3A97%3D546 %3DXROQDF%3E232376853%3B94%3Aot1lsi :p :shakehead

Spicoli
02-07-05, 10:04 AM
I hate those people. :flame:

NismoZ
02-07-05, 10:45 AM
Read that goofy little caption to the left of the picture. Sounds like they're trying to create a "dream (fake?) scene all along...note how the Panther car is bathed in heavenly light(dream)...in front of the pack (dream)...in front of the packed stands (BIG dream)...are we overreacting? The (dream) pic seems to fit the intent of the article. Don't separete the two. Any merit in this thought?

Andrew Longman
02-07-05, 11:52 AM
That picture caught my eye when I saw it in print. With a grandstand that high I thought it was Michigan or California. Even at that I remember thinking, "I didn't think they had a crowd that big at MIS or California"

I just emailed Racer and told them I expect a full retraction and apology in the next issue or I am gone. Journalists report, not manufacture, facts.

FRANKY
02-07-05, 01:06 PM
Remember the good ol days when racing wasn't contrieved and when people got their panties tied in a knot it was because of something worthwhile?

It's obvious from the article's photo that they wanted the darkened crowd to mesh with the black background of the article. They wanted a darkened presence. Most likely because the article itself wasn't one of rainbows and sunshine. But lets skip the obvious.

Let's get to the article itself, which isn't even flattering to the IRL. From what I could read off the scanned article. The soon to be left hanging without a team Barnes is quoted saying: "You have one team who's total sponsorship doesn't amount to one good sponsorship for other teams. They're being totally sponsored by an engine manufacturer" The article goes on to state: "The unnamed villians of course are, defending champions Abdretti Green racing and Honda."

The National Enquirer would be oh so thrilled that people are drawn to photos more than a nonfiction article. :shakehead

pchall
02-07-05, 01:16 PM
Read that goofy little caption to the left of the picture. Sounds like they're trying to create a "dream (fake?) scene all along...note how the Panther car is bathed in heavenly light(dream)...in front of the pack (dream)...in front of the packed stands (BIG dream)...are we overreacting? The (dream) pic seems to fit the intent of the article. Don't separete the two. Any merit in this thought?

Then the photo credit ought to indicate that the image has been heavily modified for whatever reasons...

racer2c
02-07-05, 01:21 PM
Remember the good ol days when racing wasn't contrieved and when people got their panties tied in a knot it was because of something worthwhile?

It's obvious from the article's photo that they wanted the darkened crowd to mesh with the black background of the article. They wanted a darkened presence. Most likely because the article itself wasn't one of rainbows and sunshine. But lets skip the obvious.

Let's get to the article itself, which isn't even flattering to the IRL. From what I could read off the scanned article. The soon to be left hanging without a team Barnes is quoted saying: "You have one team who's total sponsorship doesn't amount to one good sponsorship for other teams. They're being totally sponsored by an engine manufacturer" The article goes on to state: "The unnamed villians of course are, defending champions Abdretti Green racing and Honda."

The National Enquirer would be oh so thrilled that people are drawn to photos more than a nonfiction article. :shakehead

Let me get this straight, you're saying it is an unflattering article so they added more people to the stands to make it even more dark and unflattering. Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:

If they wanted a stylized 'dark' look to the photo they should have cropped the sky out instead of filling it in with fictitious stands full of people. Or added a collage to make the 'stylizing' more apparent. I look at the layout and see a photo that looks to be representing the actual race and if there is any question, which obviously there is, like pchall said, they should have put in a disclaimer.

FRANKY
02-07-05, 02:22 PM
Let me get this straight, you're saying it is an unflattering article so they added more people to the stands to make it even more dark and unflattering. Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:

If they wanted a stylized 'dark' look to the photo they should have cropped the sky out instead of filling it in with fictitious stands full of people. Or added a collage to make the 'stylizing' more apparent. I look at the layout and see a photo that looks to be representing the actual race and if there is any question, which obviously there is, like pchall said, they should have put in a disclaimer.



When comparing the RaceGrrl's post of the photos side by side which is darker?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v627/mdcaldwell/doctoredcombo.jpg

When looking at the scanned article posted at TF which is darker?

http://www.trackforum.com/images/page52.jpg

Only on Open Wheel racing forums would this become an issue, although I'm sure if photo inaccuracies occured on KFC's Dale Earnhardt bucket O chicken NASCAR fans could equally get riled up about nonsense. Maybe.

Methanolandbrats
02-07-05, 02:30 PM
I'm a professional photographer. It is common for editors to destroy a photo by cropping it. That's why you give them a few tight crops and hope for the best. It is NOT common to change the content of a news photograph. In advertising work it's common to screw around with an image, but everyone involved knows it. It's not done in news and journalism work.

RaceGrrl
02-07-05, 02:30 PM
People are going to get fired up when it's a topic they're passionate about. The IRL and their toadies LIE LIE LIE. This is just another example of their lying.

rabbit
02-07-05, 02:38 PM
It is wrong to doctor a photo, regardless of motive, without identifying the photo as being doctored. It is the exact same thing as Jayson Blair making up stories for the New York Times. There is absolutely no excuse for it. :thumdown:

/journalist
//knows what he's talking about on this one

This very much reminds me of the LA Times photo scandal from early in the Iraq War. Link (http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28082) The photog lost his job over it.
http://www.poynter.org/resource/28082/alteredphoto.gif

jonovision_man
02-07-05, 02:42 PM
It is wrong to doctor a photo, regardless of motive, without identifying the photo as being doctored. It is the exact same thing as Jayson Blair making up stories for the New York Times. There is absolutely no excuse for it. :thumdown:

/journalist
//knows what he's talking about on this one

This very much reminds me of the LA Times photo scandal from early in the Iraq War. Link (http://http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28082) The photog lost his job over it.

Interesting story, fixed the link (http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28082)

rabbit
02-07-05, 02:52 PM
I'm a professional photographer. It is common for editors to destroy a photo by cropping it. That's why you give them a few tight crops and hope for the best. It is NOT common to change the content of a news photograph. In advertising work it's common to screw around with an image, but everyone involved knows it. It's not done in news and journalism work.I'm hearing ya. I see photogs and page designers butting heads all the time. It's a real slippery slope when you start letting designers alter images even in the slightest fashion. Heck, I'm bothered by the fact that many times the lead story on a page is determined by which story has the best photo with it and not which story is actually the most newsworthy. Content should determine design, not the other way around.

racer2c
02-07-05, 03:24 PM
When comparing the RaceGrrl's post of the photos side by side which is darker?



When looking at the scanned article posted at TF which is darker?



Only on Open Wheel racing forums would this become an issue, although I'm sure if photo inaccuracies occured on KFC's Dale Earnhardt bucket O chicken NASCAR fans could equally get riled up about nonsense. Maybe.

Light fake stands or dark fake stands is not the issue. The fake stands are. Where should this kind of thing be discussed if not on open wheel forums? :gomer:

Andrew Longman
02-07-05, 03:44 PM
I'm a professional photographer. It is common for editors to destroy a photo by cropping it. That's why you give them a few tight crops and hope for the best. It is NOT common to change the content of a news photograph. In advertising work it's common to screw around with an image, but everyone involved knows it. It's not done in news and journalism work.

My brother worked as a contributing editor for US News and World Report and their policy was to never, ever, ever doctor anything. The standard was pretty much set when Time (or was it Newsweek) darkened OJ's skin on their cover photo of him during his trial. It's just not allowed.

At USN&WR I remember hearing about an article that had a clearly posed picture in support of a story about something like "Get Your Vacation Under Control." The picture originally had the guy barefooted and the photo editor thought it would look better with sneakers and photoshopped on a pair. The managing editor said no-way. The rule is the rule, even though the picture had no pretense as photo-journalistic.

The guys at Racer either showed themselves to be hacks or lackies. Either is not good.

Now that all said, Racer (or any other sporting journal), is a little different than the front page of the NY Times. Racer both reports on the sport and to a degree promotes it too. Hyping the big game, or race, helps build interest and in turn sells more papers. The orginal sporting promoters in the US were newspapers that put on boxing matches so they would have something interestingto write about. STILL, no matter what, they are not supposed to manufacture or alter the facts.

Andrew Longman
02-07-05, 03:49 PM
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

rabbit
02-07-05, 03:58 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.

[snip]

Laurence Foster,
Editor-in-chiefI am speechless.
:shakehead

That magazine just dropped several notches in my mind.

Methanolandbrats
02-07-05, 04:12 PM
Cropping is used for design reasons. Man, what a bunch of tools.

Andrew Longman
02-07-05, 04:15 PM
And my reply to Racer...

I don't wish for you to take a specific side and I believe you have been reasonably even handed over time. That is why I continued my subscription with you for so many years.

I also understand there are legitimate reasons for using Photoshop. That's why there is such a product.

But if, as you said, you appreciate the passion that the split has created, you would certainly know the risks to your credibility if you began altering images of crowd size at an IRL event. While you may say it is your policy not to alter the content of a photo for moral or politically dubious reasons, the fact is that you changed a very important fact (as opposed to adding grass or sky) within the photo and we only have your word on your motives. You may say it doesn't matter, but many people will say it does.

My suggestion is that you adopt a policy of just not altering photos of any actual event. Period. Do not invite the questions, criticism and doubt. That is the policy of every news organization I know of (and I know many). That will no doubt frustrate the creative impulses of your design staff, but I think your customers are telling you what they want.

This customer would accept altering of staged or posed "stylistic" photos supporting interviews and such. These make no suggestion of authenticity anyway and are intended only to convey a mood or enthusiasm.

Sorry, but even if I trust your sincerity (and I do), you botched this one badly

pchall
02-07-05, 04:28 PM
I am speechless.
:shakehead

That magazine just dropped several notches in my mind.

Jesus... the journalism standards I grew up with are dead.

Gnam
02-07-05, 04:28 PM
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.
Then why not mention in the caption that the photo has been altered?

cart7
02-07-05, 04:29 PM
Jeez. :rolleyes:

Is your field a little short? Not to worry,... You'll always be remembered for a full field for posterity once RACER "shops" in a few more entrants. :gomer:

racer2c
02-07-05, 04:40 PM
Then why not mention in the caption that the photo has been altered?

Exaclty. One tiny little statement and the whole issue would be null.


I think I'll make an inquiry to some other niche sport magazines to see if this is their practice also. It does make me feel good that I dropped Racer when they embraced the IRL as the open wheel series 'winner'.

It will be interesting to see if there are other 'design enhanced' photos as the year goes on and if they focus a few on the CCWS, you know, because they are so impartial.

FRANKY
02-07-05, 04:42 PM
Just got this reply from Racer...




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).

Laurence Foster,
Editor-in-chief




In that picture they have it titled 'CAR-TO-CAR COMBAT" "Bourdais guns for Tracy's Champ Car Crown" with another for "design reasons" picture showing Paul's car and Bourdais's car from an overhead shot almost side by side with Paul in front.

OH the HUMANITY! Paul shouldn't even have been in the picture! :laugh:

I think people just wanted to whine about something. Hopefully next time it will be about something important.

FRANKY
02-07-05, 04:48 PM
Then why not mention in the caption that the photo has been altered?

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.

NismoZ
02-07-05, 04:59 PM
Clarified to MY satisfaction. (it's what I suspected, anyway)...but that still doesn't make it right. If you guys think carefully, though, I suspect you come across things on a daily basis that are said or done for selfish reasons that have an unintentional negative impact on others. This is often pointed out to me by my wife.

rabbit
02-07-05, 05:07 PM
I think people just wanted to whine about something. Hopefully next time it will be about something important.Journalistic integrity is incredibly important - just ask Dan Rather.

FRANKY
02-07-05, 05:21 PM
Journalistic integrity is incredibly important - just ask Dan Rather.


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.