Darkening of journalistic photography

Pieter12 · Tuesday at 10:04 PM

warden said:
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 · 2025-04-23T05:23:55-0400

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 · 2025-04-23T09:24:39-0400

MattKing said:
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 · 2025-04-23T15:08:31-0400

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 · 2025-04-23T20:17:38-0400

Don_ih said:
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 · 2025-04-23T20:39:16-0400

Alan Edward Klein said:
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 · 2025-04-23T20:47:10-0400

MattKing said:
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 · 2025-04-23T20:51:23-0400

Don_ih said:
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 · 2025-04-23T21:32:07-0400

Alan Edward Klein said:
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 .

Darkening of journalistic photography

Pieter12

Don_ih

Alan Edward Klein

Jeremy Greenaway

Harry Callahan

MattKing

Moderator

Alan Edward Klein

Pieter12

MattKing

Moderator

Darkening of journalistic photography

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency