Darkening of journalistic photography

[Pieter12]

So why can't the news organization do the final edits on a copy of the trustworthy file to make daylight images look like they were actually taken in daylight conditions? Maybe they can, and normally do. I dunno.

Or maybe they don't have the time, ability or inclination to do so. Today's newsrooms are barely staffed.

 

[Don_ih]

Reuters is one of the largest news agencies in the world, with around 2500 journalists and 600 photographers working for them. The parent corporation Thompson Reuters has over 25000 employees.

Reuters was criticized for publishing doctored photos in the past. They were also criticized for cropping photos. So perhaps they now only publish the photos they get and don't alter them in any way.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

In the deepest realms of history, photographers and editors would have had a chance to communicate about these technical issues - and frequently that communication worked well for both sides.
Of course, those were also the days when there was a photographic print in the middle of that chain.
I used to frustrate my editors sometimes, because when I had a decent idea where they wanted to use my work, and the approximate size and shape of the window they needed filled, I would give them stuff that they could only use one way, no matter how much they wanted to wield that crop mark pencil!

I;ve read in magazine days, photographers would shoot both landscape and portrait views of each shoot to allow editors to choose the one that best works in the magazine, hoping they'd get selected for the cover shot which is portrait format. They'd even leave empty space where the magazine's title and contents are added to the cover shot.

 

[Jeremy Greenaway]

Not just magazine days - in newspapers as well. It pissed off some of the old brigade shooting on plates or cut film into the 60s because of having to hump more dark slides around. But this wasn't a proplen once film backs became available. It was also one of the reasons why quite a few snappers changing over from plate chose Rolleis. Square format could give the art editor (as picture editors were once called - I was one!) a choice. And them what couldn't run to a Rollei in the 60s/70s had the option of Minoltas and Yashicamats - the latter very good for the price.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Alan contacted her and she said she set the exposure to not clip the highlights. Reuters did not adjust the exposure. So, it's a combination of underexposure plus a lack of post-processing.

I see. Then my guess was (partially) correct.

 

[MattKing]

I;ve read in magazine days, photographers would shoot both landscape and portrait views of each shoot to allow editors to choose the one that best works in the magazine, hoping they'd get selected for the cover shot which is portrait format. They'd even leave empty space where the magazine's title and contents are added to the cover shot.

Most of my work was for a tabloid (not broadsheet) format newspaper that published three times a week, and used a style sheet that favored "art" that had a roughly 3:4 aspect ratio. Most photos were in landscape orientation, but some of the feature sections would have large covers in portrait orientation.
I was using 35mm Tri-X, which meant that everything was going to be cropped anyways.
Reproduction quality was reasonable - it was high speed offset printed, with half-tone reproduction of photos using a moderate dot-pitch.
I would often avoid tight, in-camera cropping, because I needed flexibility.
While I sometimes shoot both landscape and portrait views, I would more frequently add that flexibility at the printing stage - both a landscape crop and a portrait crop from the same, generously framed negative.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Most of my work was for a tabloid (not broadsheet) format newspaper that published three times a week, and used a style sheet that favored "art" that had a roughly 3:4 aspect ratio. Most photos were in landscape orientation, but some of the feature sections would have large covers in portrait orientation.
I was using 35mm Tri-X, which meant that everything was going to be cropped anyways.
Reproduction quality was reasonable - it was high speed offset printed, with half-tone reproduction of photos using a moderate dot-pitch.
I would often avoid tight, in-camera cropping, because I needed flexibility.
While I sometimes shoot both landscape and portrait views, I would more frequently add that flexibility at the printing stage - both a landscape crop and a portrait crop from the same, generously framed negative.

I;m not a pro so my style is different. When I go on vacation, I plan to do slide show of it on my TV or monitor. I dislike the black bars on the sides with portrait views. So I shoot all my shots in landscape mode even switching to 16:9 format to match short video clips and the TV screen format.

 

[Pieter12]

Reuters is one of the largest news agencies in the world, with around 2500 journalists and 600 photographers working for them. The parent corporation Thompson Reuters has over 25000 employees.

Reuters was criticized for publishing doctored photos in the past. They were also criticized for cropping photos. So perhaps they now only publish the photos they get and don't alter them in any way.

I can't fathom why a news service would be criticized for cropping photos. The end-user has that option, the photographer exercised that option when framing the shot. It's photojournalism, not art.

 

[MattKing]

I;m not a pro so my style is different. When I go on vacation, I plan to do slide show of it on my TV or monitor. I dislike the black bars on the sides with portrait views. So I shoot all my shots in landscape mode even switching to 16:9 format to match short video clips and the TV screen format.

I was a volunteer, on a not-for profit publication which had high standards. It was gratifying, but also exhausting.
Generally speaking though, it is really good to both be working with a team, where people were relying on me, and I was working with a reasonably clear idea of what sort of result was needed.
As for photography in general:
Working with an editor can be really good for you as a photographer.
Working with an editor can be really frustrating for you as a photographer.
Two things can be true at the same time .

 

[Don_ih]

I can't fathom why a news service would be criticized for cropping photos. The end-user has that option, the photographer exercised that option when framing the shot. It's photojournalism, not art.

They were criticized for cropping the edges of a photo and thereby cropping knife-wielding hands that changed the meaning of the photo. And - you're right - it's photojournalism and not art, so there should be no cropping or adjustment. Photos don't have to be pretty for journalism.

Here is a relevant article. Here is another. (Not specifically about Reuters.) A general search will list many instance where cropping was problematic.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I was a volunteer, on a not-for profit publication which had high standards. It was gratifying, but also exhausting.
Generally speaking though, it is really good to both be working with a team, where people were relying on me, and I was working with a reasonably clear idea of what sort of result was needed.
As for photography in general:
Working with an editor can be really good for you as a photographer.
Working with an editor can be really frustrating for you as a photographer.
Two things can be true at the same time .

I'm not sure of your point Matt. Was it a tender way to say, I need help? Could you elaborate?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I can't fathom why a news service would be criticized for cropping photos. The end-user has that option, the photographer exercised that option when framing the shot. It's photojournalism, not art.

NY Times ethics in images standard I posted previously. Cropping appears acceptable as long as it doesn't change the intent of the photo.

See Chapter 2 https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html

Integrity of Images​

Any published images that readers or viewers will understand as depictions of real events or situations must be genuine in every way. No people or objects may be added, rearranged, reversed, blurred, distorted or removed from a scene (except for the recognized practice of cropping photos to omit extraneous outer portions). Adjustments of color or gray scale should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction. Pictures of news situations – as distinct from portraits or still-lifes – must not be posed or contrived.

If a photo has been posed, altered or manipulated to serve the same purposes as an illustration, editors should be confident that readers will recognize the device and will not mistake the image for a news photo. Such images should be labeled as photo illustrations.

Staff members uncertain about the appropriateness of an alteration or unsure how to label the image should consult the director of photography or the standards editor.

 

[MattKing]

I'm not sure of your point Matt. Was it a tender way to say, I need help? Could you elaborate?

For some reason this makes me think of Elvis Presley .
The point is related to the discussion in this thread - about how the interaction between all the parts in the journalistic photography chain works.
And how the demanding nature of working with editors is both challenging and rewarding.
It is most rewarding, when the communication is open and generous - which is often difficult to arrange in this complicated world.