packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) (04/26/91)
There is an interesting photograph on page A3 of today's (Thursday, April 25) New York Times in which a scanning glitch seems to discriminate between foreground and background in the image. Two ropes running diagonally across the foreground have short segments shifted cleanly to the left at a point where they are 1.05 inches from the bottom of the picture. Objects behind the ropes, however, such as the legs of the people standing behind the ropes, have had nothing shifted!
packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) (04/28/91)
In article <5110@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes... >have short segments shifted cleanly to the left at a point It was with acute chagrin that I realized later that the effect was caused not by a shift to the left of selected parts of the image, but by a repeated horizontal band in the photograph about .05 inch high and going all the way across. Incidentally, the most likely cause for the glitch was that it was read out of a computer memory twice. The implication: the age of computer-processed news photographs has definitely arrived.
stinnett@plains.NoDak.edu (M.G. Stinnett) (04/29/91)
In article <5130@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov writes: >read out of a computer memory twice. The implication: the age of >computer-processed news photographs has definitely arrived. So why not mention the cover photo of last week's Time? The one where they used a computer to put bar codes on the nose of the fighter planes? They did, apparently, get quite a few letters about it, and admitted that they did it for "effect" and promised not to do it again, sort of. --M. G.
tlglenn@cs.arizona.edu (Ted L. Glenn) (04/30/91)
Someone wrote (what a crappy editor) : > So why not mention the cover photo of last week's Time? The one where > they used a computer to put bar codes on the nose of the fighter > planes? Actually, I it was Newsweek. Follow up to rec.photo. -- -Ted L. Glenn "Don't worry, be happy!" <--Ack! Pffffhhht! tlglenn@cs.arizona.edu tlglenn@hacks.arizona.edu G19382105@ccit.arizona.edu G19382105@ARIZRVAX.BITNET
tonyb@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke) (04/30/91)
In article <10034@plains.NoDak.edu> stinnett@plains.NoDak.edu (M.G. Stinnett) writes: In article <5130@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov writes: >read out of a computer memory twice. The implication: the age of >computer-processed news photographs has definitely arrived. So why not mention the cover photo of last week's Time? The one where they used a computer to put bar codes on the nose of the fighter planes? Actually, Time processes lots of their covers. My favorite one (I witnessed this in person, was several years back, right after the Chernobyl accident. Let me make a short story long... (If you're in a hurry, skip to the bottom paragraphs). I was at a pre-press house in NJ (GS Litho) installing some software for a product that my then-employer was beta testing at their plant. GS Litho is a major customer of Scitex's (a big player in imaging systems) -- an employee of GSL claimed that GSL had more Scitex equipment in one place than anyone in North America. I was wandering around watching GSL's imaging artists retouch, stitch together, and otherwise enhance, images of all sorts. Much of the stuff they were working on was advertising material. I was (and still am) amazed at what one can do with this equipment. I started paying attention when I saw several pictures of Volvo sedans and station wagons lying around. It seems that Volvo needed some pictures of the new model year's station wagon in time to meet a press deadline, but hadn't built any yet. Not to worry -- the previous year's sedan was the same as the new wagon from the front doors up, and the new wagon wasn't changing in the back. So GSL was taking the two pictures, of two different color cars, matching the colors and lighting perspectives, and everything was copacetic. That one didn't bother me *too* much, but the BMW ad really pissed me off. This one was of a bright red car, shot from the side. The picture had come back from the ad designer's desk with circles and arrows (on the 8x10 color glossy photo, just like the Guthrie song!) on it, pointing to the chrome door keylocks. 'Visually distracting', said the markup, accompanied by instructions to airbrush them out. For pete's sake, if the keylocks are on the car, and they ruin it's lines, change the car, not the ad!! The previous two things paled compared to the Time cover. This was a cover photo, for an article chronicling the efforts of that famous American leukemia (I think) expert that went over to try to do bone-marrow transplants on some of the victims. The picture was of a very unhappy, hairless person dying horribly in an oxygen tent some where inside the USSR. The image had been taken on the sly, and was not particularly well composed. The cover had come back from the editor's heavily marked. The two things I remember clearly were that an IV tube was in the way and was to be removed, and that glare from the oxygen tent was obscuring most of the victim's face, and again was to be removed. Other minor elements were to be excised as well, but those are the two I remember. Perhaps I'm being a weenie, but I think photojournalists are making a serious mistake by allowing their images to be manipulated in this way. They may sell better in the short run, but I think it will damage the field irreparably. The manipulated Time cover was much better looking and had more impact post-airbrushing than before, but it was an artist's conception, not a photograph! I think anything that blurs the distinction between true photojournalism and the National Enquirer's "Saddam Hussein Wears Women's Clothing!"-type pasteups is a crime, and a disservice to straight photographers. We are very close to having commercially available scanning and film-output technology that operates at better-than-film-grain resolution. At that point, photojournalism will be dead if the public isn't convinced that responsible publications will make no use of the technology in any way that could affect the journalistic content of an image. Done Fuming For Now, Tony Berke (tonyb@juliet.ll.mit.edu)
tonyb@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke) (05/01/91)
In article <5130@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes: In article <5110@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes... >have short segments shifted cleanly to the left at a point It was with acute chagrin that I realized later that the effect was caused not by a shift to the left of selected parts of the image, but by a repeated horizontal band in the photograph about .05 inch high and going all the way across. Incidentally, the most likely cause for the glitch was that it was read out of a computer memory twice. The implication: the age of computer-processed news photographs has definitely arrived. This sort of goof doesn't *have* to be too scary. I didn't catch your original posting, so I don't know where the picture was published, but I can tell you that lots of newpapers scan images and pass them around that way for layout and screening. Some well heeled papers (Newsday and USA Today come to mind) even have cute satellite-linked portable scanners, allowing photographers to get color or b/w images into the papre from remote locations before deadlines. Any of these innocuous uses could have allowed a 'glitch' like you saw to happen. As for the *other* things that people do with photos after they've been scanned, see my other posting! Tony Berke (tonyb@juliet.ll.mit.edu)
lytle@noao.edu (Dyer Lytle CCS) (05/02/91)
In article <TONYB.91Apr30132158@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu> tonyb@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke) writes: [examples of photographic manipulation by Time magazine and others deleted] > Perhaps I'm being a weenie, but I think photojournalists are making a > serious mistake by allowing their images to be manipulated in this > way. They may sell better in the short run, but I think it will > damage the field irreparably. The manipulated Time cover was much > better looking and had more impact post-airbrushing than before, but > it was an artist's conception, not a photograph! I think anything > that blurs the distinction between true photojournalism and the > National Enquirer's "Saddam Hussein Wears Women's Clothing!"-type > pasteups is a crime, and a disservice to straight photographers. I disagree. I think the purpose of a photojournalistic photograph, like any other photograph, is to communicate with the person who looks at the photograph. Often, as you say, the manipulated photo has more impact, the viewer is not distracted by bad composition and can give all of his or her attention to the main theme of the photo. However, there has to be some ideal to which the photojournalist will strive and I think some of the photos in the National Enquirer, for example, are the antithesis of this ideal. Some types of manipulation can really improve the message content of a photograph, others destroy its authenticity. > We are very close to having commercially available scanning and > film-output technology that operates at better-than-film-grain > resolution. At that point, photojournalism will be dead if the > public isn't convinced that responsible publications will make no > use of the technology in any way that could affect the journalistic > content of an image. As you say, it depends on how the technology is used, its the same with nuclear energy, TELEVISION, genetic engineering, and any of a thousand other technologies. Will they be used responsibly and thus improve life and society? Or will they be generally abused, leading to a degradation in the perception of the usefulness of those technologies? I am optimistic, I think there are many responsible people working for the serious journals and that this technology will be a boon to the system. > Tony Berke (tonyb@juliet.ll.mit.edu) -Dyer lytle@noao.edu -- Dyer Lytle, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, 602-323-4136 UUCP: {arizona,decvax,ncar}!noao!lytle or uunet!noao.edu!lytle Internet: lytle@noao.edu SPAN/HEPNET: 5356::LYTLE or DRACO::LYTLE
kph@cs.brown.edu (Kenneth Paul Herndon) (05/02/91)
In article <TONYB.91Apr30132158@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu> tonyb@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke) writes: Path: brunix!uunet!wuarchive!mit-eddie!xn.ll.mit.edu!xn!tonyb From: tonyb@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke) Newsgroups: misc.headlines,rec.photo,sci.electronics Date: 30 Apr 91 17:21:58 GMT References: <5110@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <5130@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <10034@plains.NoDak.edu> Sender: usenet@xn.ll.mit.edu Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43 Lines: 77 Xref: brunix misc.headlines:26759 rec.photo:19751 sci.electronics:18652 In article <10034@plains.NoDak.edu> stinnett@plains.NoDak.edu (M.G. Stinnett) writes: In article <5130@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov writes: >read out of a computer memory twice. The implication: the age of >computer-processed news photographs has definitely arrived. So why not mention the cover photo of last week's Time? The one where they used a computer to put bar codes on the nose of the fighter planes? Actually, Time processes lots of their covers. My favorite one (I witnessed this in person, was several years back, right after the Chernobyl accident. Let me make a short story long... (If you're in a hurry, skip to the bottom paragraphs). [...] Perhaps I'm being a weenie, but I think photojournalists are making a serious mistake by allowing their images to be manipulated in this way. They may sell better in the short run, but I think it will damage the field irreparably. The manipulated Time cover was much better looking and had more impact post-airbrushing than before, but it was an artist's conception, not a photograph! I think anything that blurs the distinction between true photojournalism and the National Enquirer's "Saddam Hussein Wears Women's Clothing!"-type pasteups is a crime, and a disservice to straight photographers. I don't think you're being a weenie, but I do wonder why you think that photography (even photojournalism) is anything but an artist's conception? I know this idea is verging on the theoretical and can get as messy as arguments over religion, but it is an important point to me. I'm not a pro photographer, nor am I a photojournalist. But I do feel that any photograph is in some way, however subtle, chosen for a reason, and in this way, it is a subjective act on the part of the photographer to represent something. There is no "true" photograph that accurately represents the essence of some object or situation. We are very close to having commercially available scanning and film-output technology that operates at better-than-film-grain resolution. At that point, photojournalism will be dead if the public isn't convinced that responsible publications will make no use of the technology in any way that could affect the journalistic content of an image. I don't think that photojournalism will die - we'll always be in need of pictures to show us tidbits of the world around us. It's rediculous to predict that non-film media will kill the photojournalist. His or her job may change somewhat in a technical way, but the essence of it will remain the same. This world loves pictures, especially those parts of the world that publish huge amounts of journalism. Done Fuming For Now, Tony Berke (tonyb@juliet.ll.mit.edu) -Ken -- ----------------------------------------------------------- -ken herndon- kph@cs.brown.edu uunet!brunix!kph st601698@brownvm.bitnet kph@browncs.bitnet address: po box 5636 brown university providence ri 02912 -----------------------------------------------------------
aj_taylo@sol.brispoly.ac.uk (taylor) (05/02/91)
After the previous posting which isn't included here 'cos it's huge, how about the manipulation of images like the addition of flames to an oil drum that women were dumping their bras in. The 'Bra burning feminist' did not exist, but I suppose that the 'Bra dumping feminist' Wouldn't be so good for the story. I think, sadly, that all pictures are liable to doctoring if it will enhance the impact of the story. Any other ideas? -- Andy Taylor ****************************************************************************** * ... and pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space * * 'cos there's bugger all down here on Earth. * * Monty Python's Meaning Of Life * ******************************************************************************
tonyb@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke) (05/02/91)
I think a few people misinterpreted my comments about image manipulation and its implications for photojournalism. First of all, I don't think there's anything wrong with electronically manipulating images that are used for art. I have occasional access to sophisticated equipment for doing just that, and have absolutely no qualms about hanging a picture on my wall that has been jazzed up in any way that my skill, equipment, and time allow. That's what burning, dodging, contrast control, and many other essential darkroom techniques are all about, and I certainly don't have any problem with them either. I really think things are different when you are talking about news photos. If I had picked up a copy of Time in 1987 and saw a political cartoon depicting Gary Hart partying with a non-wifely babe on a boat, I'd laugh. When the world saw some photographs of the same thing, our country's political situation changed overnight. With current technology, it'd be about a one hour job to fabricate the photo that ended Hart's political career to a level that you could *never* detect by eye. The FBI or someone could probably detect evidence of tampering in the negative, but I think in a few years a clever individual could make even that pretty difficult. Here's a real example (from another business trip). For fun, a Scitex operator took a Polaroid of me, scanned it, and in about ten minutes he had rubbed out my hair (I look really wierd bald!), changed my clothing color to a dark blue, and placed a white rectangle near the bottom of the photograph, with a series of digits incribed inside of it. This was only a ten minute job and wouldn't stand up to careful scrutiny, but what would my political future be if a more convincing prison mug shot were published of me on election eve? Once the hardware gets good enough to prevent the detection of tampering (you NASA JPL types might be able to convince me that that is never going to happen), I don't think it will take too long before the public no longer believes that an image has to represent truth in any form. While this might not affect People magazine, I think it will have a very big effect on *real* news photography -- who'll want to risk getting shot taking front-line combat photos if the paper down the street is pasting them up from stock photos, and no one can tell the difference? The editors of magazines and newspapers need to come up with some very strong ethical guidelines for these technologies, soon. Once they come up with them, they need to follow them, and make sure the public knows about it. Still Fuming (I guess), Tony Berke
sgombosi@isis.cs.du.edu (Stephen O. Gombosi) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May1.172913.5077@noao.edu> lytle@noao.edu (Dyer Lytle CCS) writes: >In article <TONYB.91Apr30132158@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu> tonyb@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke) writes: > >[examples of photographic manipulation by Time magazine and others deleted] > >> Perhaps I'm being a weenie, but I think photojournalists are making a >> serious mistake by allowing their images to be manipulated in this >> way. [ Stuff deleted] >> I think anything >> that blurs the distinction between true photojournalism and the >> National Enquirer's "Saddam Hussein Wears Women's Clothing!"-type >> pasteups is a crime, and a disservice to straight photographers. > >I disagree. I think the purpose of a photojournalistic photograph, >like any other photograph, is to communicate with the person who >looks at the photograph. Often, as you say, the manipulated photo >has more impact, the viewer is not distracted by bad composition >and can give all of his or her attention to the main theme of the >photo. When does it stop being "journalism" and start being "fiction"? If you start manipulating the image extensively, adding/deleting elements such as people, changing background, etc., aren't you committing the photo- graphic equivalent of misquoting or quoting out of context? A journalist and a novelist BOTH attempt to communicate something, but a journalist has to stay within certain well-defined boundaries. In theory, there's a difference between reportage and editorials - that's why there's an "op-ed" page. IMHO, this sort of stuff crosses the line. It may be "more effective", but it isn't accurate reportage - it's an editorial, or, in the worst cases, an outright fabrication. This kind of stuff reeks of _1984_ or the crude manipulations of the controlled media in Stalinist Russia. If you airbrush Trotsky out of the picture, then he never existed, right? If you add Stalin next to a smiling Lenin, then good ol' Joe must be the chosen successor, right? Or, to choose another example, if you have pictures of a bunch of corpses in Polish uniforms inside of Germany it must be time to invade Poland. Maybe the American media would never resort to that sort of thing ("Remember the Maine"?), but is it worth the risk? The techniques are BETTER now, so we have to be MORE careful. -Steve
asanders@adobe.COM (Alan Sanders) (05/03/91)
I think Tony's point is that photojournalism will diminish in importance if people stop believing they can TRUST the images they see. Network news broadcasting is already heading down this road: people are beginnning to realize that the news is frequently "manipulated" in order to create a definite (though not always accurate) impression. Sad to say, you can bet that if documentary photographs *can* be manipulated, they WILL be manipulated, at least by some people. As far as "truth" is concerned, such photographs aren't worth the paper they are printed on. -Alan
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May1.172913.5077@noao.edu>, lytle@noao.edu (Dyer Lytle CCS) writes: > In article <TONYB.91Apr30132158@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu> tonyb@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke) writes: > # [examples of photographic manipulation by Time magazine and others deleted] # # # Perhaps I'm being a weenie, but I think photojournalists are making a # # serious mistake by allowing their images to be manipulated in this # # way. They may sell better in the short run, but I think it will # # damage the field irreparably. The manipulated Time cover was much # # better looking and had more impact post-airbrushing than before, but # # it was an artist's conception, not a photograph! I think anything # # that blurs the distinction between true photojournalism and the # # National Enquirer's "Saddam Hussein Wears Women's Clothing!"-type # # pasteups is a crime, and a disservice to straight photographers. # # I disagree. I think the purpose of a photojournalistic photograph, # like any other photograph, is to communicate with the person who # looks at the photograph. Often, as you say, the manipulated photo # has more impact, the viewer is not distracted by bad composition # and can give all of his or her attention to the main theme of the # photo. However, there has to be some ideal to which the photojournalist # will strive and I think some of the photos in the National Enquirer, for # example, are the antithesis of this ideal. Some types of manipulation can # really improve the message content of a photograph, others destroy its # authenticity. Maybe I've missed something, but isn't there an assumption made when presented with a photograph, at least in a news magazine, that it reflects reality? A real photograph may be a manipulation of the actual scene (much as most of the words reported in news magazines are manipulations of actual facts), but at least there hasn't been an outright lie. The distinction between doctoring photos to lie and to tell the truth, seems like a line easy to cross with the best of intentions, and nearly impossible to draw when your desire is for the "facts" to be on the other side of the line. # # We are very close to having commercially available scanning and # # film-output technology that operates at better-than-film-grain # # resolution. At that point, photojournalism will be dead if the # # public isn't convinced that responsible publications will make no # # use of the technology in any way that could affect the journalistic # # content of an image. # # As you say, it depends on how the technology is used, its the same with # nuclear energy, TELEVISION, genetic engineering, and any of a thousand other # technologies. Will they be used responsibly and thus improve life and # society? Or will they be generally abused, leading to a degradation in # the perception of the usefulness of those technologies? I am optimistic, # I think there are many responsible people working for the serious journals # and that this technology will be a boon to the system. # # # Tony Berke (tonyb@juliet.ll.mit.edu) # # Dyer Lytle, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, 602-323-4136 Which journals? Newsweek and Time? Don't make me laugh. They are propaganda arms of the liberal establishment. Responsible? Accurate? Careful? Dream on. -- Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine! Article X, "Sec. 23. That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." KY State Const. 1799
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (05/04/91)
tonyb@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke) writes: >The editors of magazines and newspapers need to come up with some very >strong ethical guidelines for these technologies, soon. Once they >come up with them, they need to follow them, and make sure the public >knows about it. If ethics and "news media" have anything to do with each other, it is only because it is convenient or accidental. --
pk@wet.UUCP (Philip King) (05/06/91)
In article <6378@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >Which journals? Newsweek and Time? Don't make me laugh. They are >propaganda arms of the liberal establishment. Responsible? Accurate? >Careful? Dream on. Newsweek and *TIME* 'propaganda arms of the liberal establishment'?!?! HAHAHAH, HO HO HO, HEEE HEEEE HEEE... You're a gas Clayton...no wonder I get entertained by your posts... Philip King pk@wet.uucp {cca.ucsf.edu,hoptoad,claris}!wet!pk
gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) (05/11/91)
In article <KPH.91May1230920@unnamed.cs.brown.edu> kph@cs.brown.edu (Kenneth Paul Herndon) writes: >In article <TONYB.91Apr30132158@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu> tonyb@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke) writes: > In article <10034@plains.NoDak.edu> stinnett@plains.NoDak.edu (M.G. Stinnett) writes: > > Perhaps I'm being a weenie, but I think photojournalists are making a > serious mistake by allowing their images to be manipulated in this > way. They may sell better in the short run, but I think it will > damage the field irreparably. The manipulated Time cover was much > better looking and had more impact post-airbrushing than before, but > it was an artist's conception, not a photograph! I think anything > that blurs the distinction between true photojournalism and the > National Enquirer's "Saddam Hussein Wears Women's Clothing!"-type > pasteups is a crime, and a disservice to straight photographers. > >I don't think you're being a weenie, but I do wonder why you think >that photography (even photojournalism) is anything but an artist's >conception? I know this idea is verging on the theoretical and can >get as messy as arguments over religion, but it is an important point >to me. I'm not a pro photographer, nor am I a photojournalist. But I >do feel that any photograph is in some way, however subtle, chosen for >a reason, and in this way, it is a subjective act on the part of the >photographer to represent something. There is no "true" photograph >that accurately represents the essence of some object or situation. I agree that all journalists slant their stories to some degree. Some much more than others. But an unretouched photo does show the scene the same way you would see it in person if you were looking from the same vantage point. That vantage point may have been chosen specifically to hide some detail the photographer didn't want you to see, or to give added emphasis to some minor feature, or even be staged. However, once the technology to manipulate the elements of the photo become good enough to be undetectable, all bets are off. There is no way you can be sure that what you are looking at is in any way part of a real scene. Yet the photo is presented as evidence of reality. This is nothing short of fraud. Even a photo taken with the intent to deceive yields a wealth of detail information to the trained observer that can't be hidden. Once the power to undetectably change that detail becomes possible, there is no longer any assurance that any truth can be derived from a photo. Subtle things like powder smudges on the nose of an aircraft, depth of ruts on the ground, color of grass, etc all yield valuable information that may not have been intended to be released. Shadows can give the astute observer the exact time a photo was taken. If that doesn't match the time quoted in the caption, you know immediately that you are being lied to. I could go on and on, photo interpretation is a pretty advanced science. Even the layman unconciously notices detail that lends an air of reality or unreality to a photograph. Photographs are particularly convincing in a way that reams of text are not because people have become accustomed to believing that what they see is real. When it becomes technically feasible to break that assumption, and when people finally wake up to the fact that they are being blatently lied to by photos, photojournalism is dead as a credible source of information. This concerns me because I work in the field and don't want to lose what little credibility that remains. In broadcast news, tools already are in common use that can alter a scene completely. And I know first hand that they *are* being used in this way. People are aware of this and because they have seen the tricks in commercials and entertainment programing, they put less trust in the images. With still photos however, the public is not yet aware that such clever manipulation is being done. Gary