Attached Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-ednote_blurb.blurb

Yup - this is one case where PS manipulation has no place - in documentary photography. I fully agree that this guy needeed to get sacked! Bad enough listening to the lies from their side - this is making our side out to be liars as well - at least they printed a retraction. (I'm assuming this WAS printed as a retraction in the paper?)

I heard about this and there's a discussion elsewhere on the net in regards to it.... My 2..... It is the job of a photojournalist to present the facts. What he did was wrong....his job is not to make his photographs artistically/compositionally pleasing. While not too much was done in the manipulation, I don't think the newspaper was being unfair in their decision. He was fired as a lesson to others.... yes? It's unethical to manipulate images and present them as fact in the context of photojournalism.

hmm, i wonder why he wanted to remove the tank in the first place.

documentaries are very often staged actually. As I'm learning from my girlfriend (she's taking 2 documentary film/tv courses), there are many different types of documentary, some with seemingly similar names with entirely different meanings (ie: docu-drama versus drama documentary...). In one of these genres, i forget its name, the documentary is not filmed "as is", rather, the people filming the doc often watch and wait to see what happens, and when something they want happens, they ask the people to recreate what just happened so they can film it. Not only that, but generally in that genre (i REALLY wish I could remember its name dammit... but she's tossed so many different terms at me this year... mindphucked i am), they don't even post the words "Re-enactment" or anything at the bottom of the screen. This is an accepted practice. Honestly, from my perspective, I don't see anything too wrong with that specific photograph, even based on principle. The photographer wanted to convey the story in the scene as best as possible, and that meant making a minor alteration (it was seemingly an aesthetic decision). I'd probably be more interested in seeing two truths combined to form an interesting image than choosing one or the other and have the prospect of being uninterested, and while that may not be the case in this set of photos (i dont find any of the 3 that compelling, only when i read twhat was going on behind the scenes do I go "oh fudge!"), it's how I feel personally. this would make one interesting topic of discussion it would... so why not start one now? Bending the truth, or making manipulations to create the best presentation without really altering the theme, emotion, concept, and feel of the final output... is it alright? Why/whynot?

and goatboy, I think it probably had more to do with getting the soldiers face along with the Iraqi man's face (the one hunched down in blue holding a child). In one or the other, their faces are turned away from view.

It's the "whoa" hand along with the person who looks like he's moving - which makes an entirely different statement to the image. Ficticious - I don't see it - there is EVERYTHING wrong with this type of manipulation. Jesus - if you can't find compelling images in the situation there - you need not have a damn camera in your hane...sit at home with your Etch-O-Scetch and make up your own version of what a "WAR" is. These guys are going through PLENTY without having to make what they're going through appear more or less dynamic than what it is. If you're too piss-poor a photographer to find a compelling image in that situation - maybe you should take up professional undewater-ballpoint-pen repair! NO - There is ABSOLUTELY NO excuse for this sort of manipulation - NONE! The situation is tense enough without the "artistic" bullshit being a part of it. We go to galleries to see "artistic" renditions of conflicts like this - what comes from reporters needs to be the facts - PERIOD! I don't give a sour-rat's ass if it's well composed, or if a "minor" change would make it look better - I want to see what's going on in the world WITHOUT a bunch of prima donna, "let's make it look better than it is" crap. What's "wrong" with that photograph is IT NEVER HAPPENED - I don't give a DAMN how slight the change is (it makes the difference between "everybody keep calm" and "you, there - settle down) - a drastic difference! This "documentary" need no staging - and any reporter who feels it necessary to "stage" an image given the (for lack of a better term) WEALTH of subject material given the situation doesn't need to be there to begin with - he (she)'s nothing more than a photographic hack looking to win some "award" based on images that don't exist, regardless of the ample subject matter surrounding them. Artistic doesn't mean a thing in this type of photograph. A good photographer will capture the images in front of him (her) with plenty of gut, feel, etc. - WITOUT having to MAKE UP something. Fic - you're dead wrong - HOPELESSLY wrong. This is just not done in a photojournalist perspective. It just isn't! And there isn't a damn thing you can present to "qualify" such bullshit! Marc

Thanks for posting the link. .n

dude, calm the fuck down.

oh, and there are plenty of lies eminating from both sides incidently.

Just can't seem to di it!

(Althoug, I did get get a pretty good good giggle from your responce! - calm the F down - it's what i needed!)

(Yes - I've been taking English from the "We get you speak Engleesh good" manual! (and type good for it too!)

OK - play Devil's advocate for me - how is this sort of "photojournalistic manipulation" justified?

interesting debate. personally i agree with the comment that he (and all photo journalists) should report what they see as fact. he seems to have made the change for aesthetic reasons - increase the drama in the picture. this, though, is not a new concept and has been used even in the days before software. on a professional note, did he forget or simply ignore the principals of his newspsper and go for personal glory?

in the world of photographic journalism, the photos are used to draw the reader in to read the story it accompanies. With the present day situations, and the majority of the US supporting the war (at least it is so with CNN polls... which i don't reeally trust), the resulting image will garner more attention from the readers at large. this doesnt justify it in many ways, but from a journalism standpoint, where in the end the advertisement dollars are what gets counted, it is. you can be assured that most every photographer for the LA Times has done this sort of thing before, and will continue to do so. They will just be more cautious now is all.

and man, its gotta suck to lose your job while stationed in Iraq right now...

In the end - I suppose it would sell more papers - but I gotta wonder where the line is - and frankly, I don't see a line. in photo-journalism - the should not BE a line - it should be journalism...the facts...photographically. Artistic presentation has plenty of room after the incident - in an artistic form -not a journalistic one.

i think commercialism has taken over from photojournalism. why put a photograph on the front of a newspaper if you did'nt want to use it to draw the buyer towards the article (and newspaper). i'm waiting for the opening of the telkevision war channel soon!!

Firestorm - It's called The History Channel. :) What amazes me is that the photographer was the only one fired. 5 seconds after first seeing that photograph, I noticed a couple of people who were in the shot twice. This should have been caught by at least one of the editors. At the Seattle Times they basically do a running check of every page with multiple people on both sides (pre-press and production). We even have pressmen catch errors and anomolies as they are going through checking their ink densities and the like. I would almost bet on the fact that it was given only a cursory glance and run because it leans a great deal towards the anti-war editorial atmosphere of the LA Times. I'm not saying it was a concious effort on their part, but human nature is to more easily believe in and scrutinize less those things that fall in line with how we think. My $0.02. -=>Donald

I'm amazed that such a big newspaper takes the time to enforce this policy in such a strict way, when thousands of photos land on their desks from Iraq every day. Very impressive and the LA times certainly deserves a lot of credit here! About the photo itself: I don't see why it's so important to merge the two together. It's not such a strong photo in the first place. So why on earth take this kind of risc ? If he'd added some aircraft in the sky or something, I could have understand the reason why he edited it, or additional debris or something, but not this. BTW, if you check the 'Cameraworks' section of the Washingtonpost.com you can find MUCH better photos of the war. Very, very, very strong examples of real photojournalism! (And it also shows that dead bodies or blood are not required to show a war).

Great debate here. While a slight alteration may seem harmless, it could end up disastrous, because where will it stop? Where is the line? The photos ARE often designed to catch an eye and sell a paper or mag. The same goes with the cover of the weekly news magazines. Ive already given up on fair, and impartial written/spoken word with news. I have to keep in mind the political slant of the organization, and interpret what their spin is. I would hate to have to start this process with still images as well.

In a way I feel sorry for the photographer.... but bottom line is, if you can't trust a photo what is there left to trust? Fict, I see your point with documentaries - how editors cut the footage to give whatever story they want, and that the time they spend with someone filming them can be cut to produce 2 conflicting documentaries. But they don't change the actual pictures on the film, do they? The big question this opens up is How Many Times has this been done before without being noticed? (",)