Photographic Integrity and the ABC

[ricktas]

I have been following this story on the ABC Brisbane facebook page for a few days now.

Background: A photographer provided ABC Brisbane with a photograph that showed horsemen in the clouds. People started asking if the horsemen were photoshopped (digitally created). This is where the photographer made a big mistake and said no, it was straight out of camera.

The photographer then started deleting comments saying it was edited from his facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/davephotograph/posts/2254128714660016?__xts__[0]=68.ARC_yd6NB_fL4W_4UZpu4oLPUSHjbVOD7dR2diFyEE8Xu7qCah8GWZ5GqD5HaSkYSNOtAr9UyZilz5Jt0EvCk_E9NGnqADGdclzx98my2fjpwDC0BJx2VViPDft8ngGGyAkHfWcFml0D0KW1pOw_CcmakmTt uF9vwRtrBawR22ZusslmhGEsOPzP7o3xwfwcwdtY3NUCCICVmCtfCzhy7lnNTVTIxQ&__tn__=C-R)

So people started proving that it was edited. But the bigger issue started when ABC Brisbane (https://www.facebook.com/abcinbrisbane/photos/a.114296864668/10156872181439669/?type=3&theater) came back and said they had the image assessed and spoke with the photographer, and that the image had not been photoshopped.


https://youtu.be/1kNHRdHlMu4


p.s. - I hope the links work as I have never linked from facebook to AP before.

[Snooks]

A very interesting article. Even with my limited experience using Manipulation Software it was easy to see that the photo has been altered. It would be even easier to see if we could actually view the original.

What is most concerning is that the person claims it to be the original and then the ABC and another large body declare it to be legitimate and not showing any evidence of being altered. This can only be either:


An intentional lie, possibly to further build or promote discussion
The Journo involved was lazy or negilent in pursuing the truth


The thought that some inexperienced and trusting person may well purchase this "Amazing Image" for an obscene price, is quite concerning. Like all things, if there is money to be made there will be someone willing to bend the rules to make some more and they really don't care about legalities, or integrity.

We shouldn't really be surprised, I mean, how often does the media really tell the truth or "lie by omission"?

[Hawthy]

Clearly a bit of cloning happening there. I don't know why he would continue to deny it other than I suppose it makes him look a little foolish after claiming that there was no photoshopping done.

The tone of the debate, calling each other names etc., reminds me of exactly why I am no longer on any social media platform. You just don't get that type of thing on this forum.

[Mark L]

Towards the end, 8:15, this bloke quickly said that the photog said this was a "digital art interpretation". He proved that to be as stated.:confused013

[Glenda]

I can't understand why the photographer didn't just say it was manipulated and how. Denying it and having all the associated publicity hasn't done his reputation any favours, especially as he seems to want to sell his images.

I guess the ABC was put in a difficult position where he was denying manipulation and others were claiming it was manipulated and we've all heard about the sort of comments trolls make on social media - who do they believe. It doesn't say much for Storyful though.

[Snooks]

I can't understand why the photographer didn't just say it was manipulated and how. Denying it and having all the associated publicity hasn't done his reputation any favours, especially as he seems to want to sell his images.

I guess the ABC was put in a difficult position where he was denying manipulation and others were claiming it was manipulated and we've all heard about the sort of comments trolls make on social media - who do they believe. It doesn't say much for Storyful though.

I would have thought the ABC could have asked any of their Photographers and they would have advised them instantly that it has been manipulated. I'm assuming all photographers use editing software?

[Glenda]

I would have thought the ABC could have asked any of their Photographers and they would have advised them instantly that it has been manipulated. I'm assuming all photographers use editing software?

Not sure whether their TV photographers would do much cloning - I would imagine more cutting and splicing. :D

[Snooks]

Not sure whether their TV photographers would do much cloning - I would imagine more cutting and splicing. :D

True, but wouldn't there be a "cross over" sort of aspect.

I mean...... a basic but founded understanding of each others craft? Sort of like a mechanic and a diesel mechanic? A vet and a Medical Practitioner. There is a point where both areas have very similar skill aspects. eg Vet and GP both know about cardio pulmonary details, just beat rates and BP would differ. Their experts could have presented a professional opinion surely?

I hope my comment makes sense, i'm having a hard time explaining it (lol).

[Glenda]

True, but wouldn't there be a "cross over" sort of aspect.

I mean...... a basic but founded understanding of each others craft? Sort of like a mechanic and a diesel mechanic? A vet and a Medical Practitioner. There is a point where both areas have very similar skill aspects. eg Vet and GP both know about cardio pulmonary details, just beat rates and BP would differ. Their experts could have presented a professional opinion surely?

I hope my comment makes sense, i'm having a hard time explaining it (lol).

I get what you mean. Personally my PP skills have (hopefully) improved greatly over the years but if you gave me a video, I wouldn't know where to start as it's not a type of photography I do. Also still photographers probably know what to look for in relation to cloning ie repetition of shapes and patterns whereas if you didn't do cloning you probably wouldn't. I personally find cloning difficult to do successfully but I know photographers who do it extremely well. In their case, most wouldn't pick it and would need one of those specialised software packages which examine the photograph for such changes.

[Snooks]

A valid point Glenda. :)

I guess experts are experts and if you want to "endorse" an expert then he or she needs to be a proven, accredited expert in that field.

Well that tells me that the ABC journo was not prudent in sourcing a proven expert :(

[Mark L]

I can't understand why the photographer didn't just say it was manipulated and how.

He did. I got my original time line wrong in my first post here but at the 8:50 of the posted video this fella that wants to have a go admits that the photog said this was a "digital art interpretation". He conveniently doesn't state where he got this info, but he did state it.