# Ethics question in sports photojournalism



## AceCo55 (Feb 28, 2012)

I would like people's opinions on the ethics of photomanipulation for sports photos destined to be printed in a newspaper.
Are there guidelines about what is permissable and what is not?
Some scenarios:
#1 - a player's arm/leg intrudes in the background and is not close or involved with the action. Would it be OK to clone out that arm/leg for a cleaner image?
#2 - you have a great action photo but the ball is a bit too far from the player for it to be included in the final newspaper cut (as they tend to crop tight). As a result, if the photo was to be used with a tight crop, the ball would be cropped out and the image has less impact. Is it OK to move the ball closer to the players so that it will be seen in the final crop?

I understand that photojournalists are limited ethically and morally as to how they portray their images.
Do sports photographers for magazines/newspapers have limitations on what they can/can't do with an image ... and if their are restrictions, what are they?

Curious to know.


----------



## sportsphotographer (Feb 28, 2012)

#1. NO - but many bend this rule. Ethics = no, reality = maybe.  There will always be that one prerson who WILL call you out. 
#2. NO. no no no no. Photojournalism is REALISM. you are selling what really happened.  

Ethically - you may clean up image for ISO, clarity, color, but never content. EVER.

Me:  when I wrote my column, and about town, I am very open that I bend the rules for the following: nasal matter and TEMPORARY blemishes such as acne and um, hickies (sp).  Hickies as a courtesy to grandmothers everywhere, and to their future children.  


My two cents. 


..second part of the question - depends on the quality of the paper. Think.. national geographic v national enquirer. 

I will not freelance/contract or allow my work to be shown in papers that allow the public to be deceived.   THAT SAID - I am very, very kind. I have thrown away potentially award winning shots to spare a kid humiliation. 

to me, that's ethics. 


Now I"m curious - why do you ask? These are good questions to have. 

SP


----------



## AceCo55 (Feb 28, 2012)

Thanks for that.
Why? I was looking at a weblink the other day about truth in photographs and how some famous photos have been doctored in history (eg head of Abraham Lincoln was put on the body of another in a staged setup, Stalin had a junior officer removed from an image he was in because he had fallen out of favour).
I remembered reading about the ethics in photojournalism with regards to war reporting, riots and significant events and I have seen limitations on manipulation for photojournalism photo competitions.
It got me thinking about the sports photos I see in the newspapers ... do they operate under the same code of conduct or are they allowed some more latitude, and if so what IS acceptable manipulation.

Here is one link:    http://listverse.com/2007/10/19/top-15-manipulated-photographs/
And another:  http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/faking.html

I generally clone/clean up kids acne - my rationale is that it is transient/temporary, it often is embarrassing to them and doesn't need to represent them for ever more.


----------



## sportsphotographer (Feb 28, 2012)

....tired.. 4:45 am here, gotta either work or sleep  

...I remember the first one.. that was a major scandal.. I was still in school at that time, it was a HUGE scandal on the East Coast of the US, enough that our history teachers at our school lectured us for days about ethics, duping the public, etc.  No idea whatever actually happened to that photog, but remember hearing that his/her career was destroyed (now I wonder...?)

..was in Europe and the South US when that OJ Simpson came out.. again.. scandal... how racist it was to make him more sinister by making him more "negro" as they said even 20 short years ago... ..again.. recall that the person's credibility was destroyed... (so.. now again.. I wonder.. if these really were ruined, or not?)

13 and 12 weren't news stories... they were user submitted photos that had news stories surrounding them - but not photojournalism. 

my word.... I still can't look at that second one without feeling sick inside...  I was there the day of the first, failed attacks in Dec. 1992 (bomb in basement.)

no clue about the mid-photos..

the Lincoln one shown here is NOT the iconic version of the U.S. President.... This one was a  very famous prank at that time - a political satire, and well wrought, too. 


The others, either don't know anything or nothing to say... maybe lesson is that people have been trying to pull fast ones since the snake deceived Eve.. but it upsets people when they are duped. 

the Kent one.. the way I learned it; there was so much concern that the readers would think that the sceaming was pain from the girl being impaled that they made the call to delete it. right or wrong.   Today, I would leave the post in and clarify in the fat cap.  What would you do?

didn't look at second one - better get something accomplished.  

interesting stuff, thanks for sharing


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 28, 2012)

You can adjust contrast, light/dark, spot out any dust that may be on the sensor, straighten the horizons, colour adjustments and crop.  Things can't be removed or added.  This is where getting it right in the camera is important.  There have been photographers that have lost their jobs over changes to photos that have ended up in the papers.  There is a case where a photographer added a puck to a hockey shot with a goalie to give it more impact, problem was that the real puck was also in the frame, photographer failed to see it hidden in the goalies pads.


----------



## Overread (Feb 28, 2012)

I was under the impression that most editing calls were made by the editor rather than by the photographer when it came to newspaper work. The editor got the shot right from the camera (not always in RAW either, oft JPEG mode is used so that shots can be taken and transferred fast - esp in sports where shots are needed almost as soon as they are taken at the matches). 

Thus the photographer isn't part of the final editing stages - the page designer/editor/technician in the newspaper offices might make small alterations to the original and might crop to fit the page, but they probably have a strict code when it comes to methods like cloning - even a minor cone that changes nothing but simply cleans things up might be frowned upon and a discouraged practice. 

You'll also have to remember that there are rules and "rules" - some are going to follow them without question - others will be a little more bold. The newspaper itself also matters - certain ones will be more "honest" than others.


----------



## MLeeK (Feb 28, 2012)

Honestly? the newspapers print anything. Crap or not. Usually they seem to select the crappiest of the crap lately.


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 28, 2012)

I would also think that this is something that falls into the editor's wheel house.  It's up to them, rather than the photographer (I would think).

I remember back in grade school, a field near the school flooded and froze.  My buddy was walking across it, playing around like a typical kid.  A photojournalist stopped by and took a few photos, got his name etc.  The photo that ran in the paper had a colorful sunset in the background...which certainly wasn't there when the photo was taken.  That's what really opened my eyes as to what you see in the paper/media.


----------



## Tony S (Feb 28, 2012)

Take a look at the code of Ethics for the National Press Photographers Association. It gives a good set of guidelines to follow. NPPA: Code of Ethics


----------



## sportsphotographer (Feb 28, 2012)

Thanks. I think.


----------



## sportsphotographer (Feb 28, 2012)

...There are surely newspapers out there internationally and w/ini USA that this happens with.. but the majority of editors are (stereoscopically) trained to edit print, not photos, and lack the skills to manipulate photoshop/similar program as well as a photographer stereotypically is. Personally, I'd never give control of my work to an editor in that fashion.... just like i'd never put in one of my articles without editor reviewing it to catch any mistakes and for style.  The ONLY time I've ever handed over my card wired w/o editing myself for clarity, levelness, was on extreme deadlines and the photo could be used SOOC.


----------



## sportsphotographer (Feb 28, 2012)

exactly - it destroys trust.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 28, 2012)

the links in the OP are to the same site and neither link works.


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Feb 28, 2012)

As the chief photojournailst for a daily who has to teach people about ethics pretty regularly, there is absolutely NO time in which it is ok to alter a journalistic photo in sucj a way that changes the reality of that moment. A couple of years ago the winner of the World Press Photo sports photo essay category had his award revoked because the edited a tiny foot from the background of an image because it showed between the fingers of the subject.

Just a couple weeks ago a long time, award winning SacBee photog lost his job because of photo manipulation. It is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. The only time it is accepted is for photo illustrations and that must be clearly stated. 

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/...e-fires-bryan-patrick-for-photo-manipulation/


----------



## sportsphotographer (Feb 28, 2012)

Question f or the group - am I really going to get nitpicked via private message fora  typo made during an all-nighter? I mean, really?  I have  hand in a bandage, dude, back off.


----------



## skieur (Feb 28, 2012)

It depends on the size of the paper. On some local papers the photographer may also be writing the article and editing his/her own photos.

skieur


----------



## sportsphotographer (Feb 28, 2012)

..you mean the ones that feature his/her kid in every sports shot?  (ducking and spell checking hahah)


----------



## AceCo55 (Feb 29, 2012)

Thank you all for the replies and the insight into this ... although it may look like I had abandoned this thread, it is all due to different time zones. I have just got home from work. I will definitely look up that link TonyS.

The_Traveler:  "the links in the OP are to the same site and neither link works."  Hmmm not sure what is happening there ... I just tried both and they both worked.

I am pleased, and re-assured,  to see that there are ethical considerations to sports photojournalism - it means I can truly say "Wow!", when I see a great shot.

OK ... just saw in sports section of our major newspaper where they did a cutout of two players vying to catch a ball (Australian Rules Football). Is this acceptable because everyone can see the intent of the editor? Or is it not OK because it has removed the background scene and therefore is "out of context". Or is it not OK only if the removal of the rest of the scene is done to deliberately give a more favourable view . Not sure in this case where it is OK and where it is not in cases like this.
Once again, thankyou you so much for your wealth of knowledge.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 29, 2012)

AceCo55 said:


> Thank you all for the replies and the insight into this ... although it may look like I had abandoned this thread, it is all due to different time zones. I have just got home from work. I will definitely look up that link TonyS.
> 
> The_Traveler: "the links in the OP are to the same site and neither link works." Hmmm not sure what is happening there ... I just tried both and they both worked.
> 
> ...



When photos have been cut and pasted or major changes have been made it should be labeled as a photo illustration.  Anything is acceptable as long as it labeled the correct way.  Photos used in newspapers that have just the photographers name should not have been physically alterted, alot of photos used in magazines most likely have had alot more physical work done to them.


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Feb 29, 2012)

On a side note related to this conversation, I think a lot of you guys would be surprised how many papers, even large ones, the photog edits his/her own photos. When a person is listed as the "photo editor," it generally means that person is the head photog of the department(i.e. chief photographer like me) and not the person who is literally in charge of editing other photog's photos.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 29, 2012)

Hooligan Dan said:


> On a side note related to this conversation, I think a lot of you guys would be surprised how many papers, even large ones, the photog edits his/her own photos. When a person is listed as the "photo editor," it generally means that person is the head photog of the department(i.e. chief photographer like me) and not the person who is literally in charge of editing other photog's photos.



Just a short addition. When deadlines are tight the photographers most often are travelling with their laptops and doing the edits and sending the images back from the shoot location.  With cut backs at alot of papers the photographers are the only ones that touch the images, they are just dumped into the papers and picked by the picture desk, or the news editor.


----------



## AnnieHuley (Feb 29, 2012)

I work at a small local paper and will echo that editor does not always literally mean the one who edits files. I always edit my own sports photos and write captions.


----------



## AnnieHuley (Feb 29, 2012)

Hooligan Dan said:


> On a side note related to this conversation, I think a lot of you guys would be surprised how many papers, even large ones, the photog edits his/her own photos. When a person is listed as the "photo editor," it generally means that person is the head photog of the department(i.e. chief photographer like me) and not the person who is literally in charge of editing other photog's photos.



is this for a Daily paper? I thank God every day we are a weekly and not a daily... Can't imagine the constant deadline stress.


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Feb 29, 2012)

AnnieHuley said:


> Hooligan Dan said:
> 
> 
> > On a side note related to this conversation, I think a lot of you guys would be surprised how many papers, even large ones, the photog edits his/her own photos. When a person is listed as the "photo editor," it generally means that person is the head photog of the department(i.e. chief photographer like me) and not the person who is literally in charge of editing other photog's photos.
> ...



Yep. Daily. And the deadline stress really isn't as bad as people think it is. It mostly applies to writes since they are the ones that need to have stories read and finalized before 6 with the editor leaves. With photos some assignments may not be until 8 or 9 at night, so deadline is much softer.

The real stress comes in when you've already had a full day and as you're getting ready leave someone decides to stab someone else in the streets. Or a building catches on fire. Or any other number of things that extend your day even longer. And as of two weeks ago we laid off my only weekday, part-time photog so I am the sole photographer. It makes for a lot of split shifts ad extra hours.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 29, 2012)

Hooligan Dan said:


> AnnieHuley said:
> 
> 
> > Hooligan Dan said:
> ...



I saw that you work for a small circulation paper, but it still must be tough when they start making staff cuts and still expect the pictures to magically keep showing up at the same pace.  It's happening everywhere, even the big wire services, Canadian Press, Reuters, Associated Press have been making cutbacks.  I used to be a stringer for Reuters, shooting NHL hockey.  Got to shoot one period of hockey, needed at least two good pictures, processed the film, scanned the negs and transmitted the images, all on deadline.  I didn't find it really stressful, until I didn't have two good pictures and the first period was almost over.  For those that don't understand how the newspaper business works, there is time during the day to shoot, deadline times affect assignments in the evening, and are different with each paper.  Wire services work with deadlines as well, but then the time zones come into play and the deadline can be earlier in the day.


----------



## sportsphotographer (Feb 29, 2012)

Insert curious and respectful tone here:  

Dan, I've never worked/freelanced for anyone where my photos were edited  by anyone else... then again in my 6th year (after a hiatus), so not very long...  even waaay back in college days for the college paper we'd develop our own, wind our own... not that I'd remember how to do that anymore hahah...

Also.. thinking about it now...   ...you know how a good editor teaches his/her writers to avoid the biggest routine  errors so 1. the writer can grow 2. to keep editor's job simpler (they expect my writing to be as good as I can get it before  hitting "send" even in breaking news stories)... so..why would I expect the photo editor to  straighten/crop for me? mmm... I guess I'd not really thought that hard about it.. seems my rep would be on the line if I consistently sent in things that needed babying....  or am I misunderstanding?  Thanks, looking forward to your take on the matter.      






Hooligan Dan said:


> On a side note related to this conversation, I think a lot of you guys would be surprised how many papers, even large ones, the photog edits his/her own photos. When a person is listed as the "photo editor," it generally means that person is the head photog of the department(i.e. chief photographer like me) and not the person who is literally in charge of editing other photog's photos.


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Feb 29, 2012)

The only place I've shot for that edited the photos for me was the NY Post. I think having someone else editing photos for you is a terrible idea, but some places are set up that way. From reading some of the comments here I got the impression that many people think an editor editing the photos  instead of the photog is commonplace. I just wanted to clarify for people that that's not how it is in most cases.


----------



## sportsphotographer (Feb 29, 2012)

thanks for answer -  makes sense.


----------



## AceCo55 (Mar 1, 2012)

Thanks for giving me an insight into the workings of a newpaper and sports photographer. Very interesting and I am really enjoying finding out more.

Can I be bold and ask another question?

If you are the photographer and you are the only one that does the edit ... do you or somone else decide on the crop and final photo size? If the photographer does, how do you know what size and ratio to crop to? If it is someone else, do they ever "butcher" you image with a terrible crop decision that takes away the impact of your original submission? If so ... do you have any recourse or is it the editor's decision and you just have to live with it?


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Mar 1, 2012)

The size of the photo is mostly dertermined by the copy desk person who lays out the pages. Generally a center package photo will have a larger play than other photos on the page. As far as cropping, I always crop my photos to a 2:3 ratio because that is what a full frame is and I shoot to fill the frame and crop as little as possible. The desk sometimes needs to change my crop a little for room but I discourage that as often as I can. Every once in a while they will crop an image ina way that negatively impacts the photo. They get an earfull if they do that.


----------



## sportsphotographer (Mar 1, 2012)

a number of years ago, 
...we had a HS athlete in town who's been able to leap 5'4" in the high jump probably even in his sleep. He plays basketball, is nearly 7' tall.   Best shot I ever got of him.. his knees were nearly to my shoulders if not his feet...  had my short lens on and got a perfect shot - you could TELL he caught some air .. the floor was in the shot, and it was tight enough shot......so.. the decision was made to make it into a head shot with a very odd facial expression on it... 

I don't work there anymore.  


....... didn't end it with them because of that judgment call, but it was first of many that led to my leaving  

anyway, that's just my two cents, interested in hearing what Dan has to say... as far as recourse, you can mention it to the proper person if you think it would help.. but it won't change what went out already so pick your battles.

Out of curiosity - since I'm a noob and not met you before this thread.. what's your interest? Just general public wanting to know..or are you a peer who wants to know how another culture handles it? or something else? Hope you don't mind the question - I am curious about you! 





AceCo55 said:


> Thanks for giving me an insight into the workings of a newpaper and sports photographer. Very interesting and I am really enjoying finding out more.
> 
> Can I be bold and ask another question?
> 
> If you are the photographer and you are the only one that does the edit ... do you or somone else decide on the crop and final photo size? If the photographer does, how do you know what size and ratio to crop to? If it is someone else, do they ever "butcher" you image with a terrible crop decision that takes away the impact of your original submission? If so ... do you have any recourse or is it the editor's decision and you just have to live with it?


----------



## AceCo55 (Mar 1, 2012)

Sportphotographer:  Thanks for that info - enjoyed getting enlightened.

Original reason for starting this thread? .... see post #3 (ethics of truth in journalism got me thinking about where are the lines drawn for sports photojournalism)

I am a keen amateur - just love taking sports photos. I live in a small rural town (1400 people) and take photos of local sports:  Australian Rules Football, Netball, Dirtkarts, Tennis, Golf, Cricket and our one Triathlon event for the year. There are no other sports photographers in town, no real professional photographers within 100km (are a couple of part-timers about 50km away who do weddings). I sort of do it for both my pleasure and a service for the town. If people want a photo file or print, I supply them for a small fee, but I'm not fussed if I sell any or not. I just like locals looking at them (we are sort of like a big family - everyone looks out for everyone). I do a display for the footy club every week. I send in some photos each week to our local paper (one edition per week, maybe maximum of 24 pages!!!). I don't ask for credit (everyone in town knows I have taken the photos) and they give me a small contribution to my hobby).  At times they totally butcher the photos with their cropping and sizing, I can never guess how many photos they will use, what size they will print or their layout. I think it depends on how much news there is for that week!!!
Sometimes I wish they would use less photos with a looser crop to let the image "breathe" and have more impact ... but it really doesn't bother me overly. Again it is a service to the town (bit of a historical record of sports here) and all the players can see my edited photos on my web site.
I was just wondering what larger newspapers did and how they operated their photography workflow. I find the business of sports photography fascinating - but I would never want to HAVE to get a shot or HAVE to meet a deadline.
Anyway - thanks for everyone's contributions - I have enjoyed the learning.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 1, 2012)

The desk quite often make the photos fit the spaces, and it doesn't matter to them if they destroy the image.


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Mar 1, 2012)

A couple of years ago I hired a new guy to work on saturdays. One of his first assignments was a charity race organized by a high school senior. The shot he turned in had the student on the far right of the frame holding up a megaphone shouting "ready...set...go" and the runners comming at her on the left side of the frame. The whole story was about her and less about the race. On Monday when I opened up the paper to see how his photo turned out the desk cropped the photo in a way that there was just the disembodied arm of the girl with a megaphone. The first words in the cutline were evern "_Jane Doe_, right...." 

Never trust the desk to do it right. The best thing to do is talk to them about how the photos are going to be laid out at some point.

And that's my story for the day.


----------



## polymoog (Mar 1, 2012)

Really interesting discussion here, and it makes me feel really bad, because I do clone out things from my pics to clean them up, (I clone out small things that get in the way, like barrier tape, or a partial person or object in the background) but I would never manipulate them, as in Big Mike's example where they added a totally different background (sunset). I am just an amateur and occasionally I get pics in a sledding magazine, the writer choses which pics he wants then I get to crop and process them how I want. Afterwards when the mag comes out, they might have positioned them partly on top of each other for stylistic reasons but I've never seen them altered from the image I turned in. The only thing that can happen is the exposure/colouring can change from how I thought it would be, because my monitor is not calibrated (I should really look into that) and my pics are only processed for web viewing ... 

I think the point is, that a really successful image needs no cloning because the eye is not drawn to, or distracted by, any irrelevant elements or discrepancies. People like me who maybe don't compose the image very well, and who take pics often with insufficient DOF, find these anomalies stand out more, and thus feel the need to get rid of them.

Does that make any sense?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 1, 2012)

I take out things on occation but for my own personal use, but never for editorial use.  Don't make major changes to images unless it is being laid out as an illustration.


----------

