Photos in the media that shouldn't have made the "cut".

[I @ M]

Just saw an image on The Australian website that made me cringe, total focus failure and possibly an inappropriate aperture used on what should have been a "sitting duck" capture.
Have you seen images that should never have been used by the mainstream media?
I suspect that there are quite a few out there.

Link them here but don't post the image.

Here is the one (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/comedian-mick-molloy-and-network-ten-to-pay-legal-costs-for-nicole-cornes-defamation/story-e6frg6nf-1226126492230) that made me think about this subject.

[danny]

Is her "Chest" in focus?

Danny

[Chris Michel]

might have been snapped with an iphone or a covert camera ??

[Kym]

Just front focused? Kelly Barnes is the staff 'tog

[I @ M]

Newspapers don't worry about sticking cameras in the face of people in the street that have been in court so I doubt that there was anything covert about that photo and as a staff photographer and therefore a "professional" they should not have stuffed up a shot like that.

A massive fail, pure and simple.
Crap photography from the media which is struggling to pay its way these days.

[kiwi]

She's an award winning photographer, could be a selection or printn error IMHO.

[JM Tran]

That shot is nothing to even raise eyebrows about, I have seen a lot, lot worse

we dont know the whole story here, she the photographer was possibly moving backwards either half jogging or walking and snapped the shots off as she went. You can tell the subject is walking as there are at least another person beside her as well.

its not a big page spread so no need to have everything technically perfect, as long as the shot can show who the subject is - its done its purpose. Not to mention the editor(s) select the photos not the photographer.

[I @ M]

Rubbish

[JM Tran]

Rubbish


sorry I dont know which part is rubbish? Your rather bad example of a 'bad shot' or your lack of how newspapers and photojournalism works in the overall scheme of things?

[kiwi]

Lol, :th3:

I agree whatever the reason it's not a good look.

[I @ M]

sorry I dont know which part is rubbish? Your rather bad example of a 'bad shot' or your lack of how newspapers and photojournalism works in the overall scheme of things?

As far as I am concerned, the photo is rubbish and the possible "defences" as to how the shot (failed) to come about are rubbish as well.
I don't give a hoot and holler in hell about any excuses etc, anyone that can't see that that shot is a miserable fail needs their eyes examined. Maybe it was the only shot that they had to print but as far as I am concerned it should have been left unprinted so as to stop the publishing journal appear to be printing more rubbish.

As for your speculation that I may not know how newspapers and photojournalism work, perhaps we had better leave that one untouched seeing as I have had working knowledge of photographing mixed with a small amount of journalism for a newspaper.

[JM Tran]

As far as I am concerned, the photo is rubbish and the possible "defences" as to how the shot (failed) to come about are rubbish as well.
I don't give a hoot and holler in hell about any excuses etc, anyone that can't see that that shot is a miserable fail needs their eyes examined. Maybe it was the only shot that they had to print but as far as I am concerned it should have been left unprinted so as to stop the publishing journal appear to be printing more rubbish.

As for your speculation that I may not know how newspapers and photojournalism work, perhaps we had better leave that one untouched seeing as I have had working knowledge of photographing mixed with a small amount of journalism for a newspaper.


well then, since you seem to give a big hoot over it, why dont you write a formal complaint letter to the much lauded Australian newspaper so very well regarded by journalists such as myself? Ask why this little hard news story was so bad photographed compared to a soft news story? I hope you know the difference between those 2.

In the formal complaint letter maybe you can mention

1. Lack of use of softbox for better lighting
2. Poor composition of subject - omg look at that odd shoulder in there!
3. Why was it not shot in RAW and with better white balance
4. Why is the female subject facing straight towards the camera and not turned to the side a bit more, as its less flattering for women
5. Why is the hair and make up not that great

In the formal letter, also take into account the external factors such as

1. Editor's reason for picking this photo
2. Editorial time constraint for print submission and deadlines for segments
3. Significance of the story (not much in the daily hard news and grand scheme of the day)
4. Environment at the time of the photograph taken - you and I were not there, hard to judge unless you were there, for all you know there could have been a scrum of reporters and photographers in front of Nicole Cornes jostling for a shot

Those are my suggestions from my experiences, hope it helps!

[98kellrs]

At the end of the day it's photojournalism, that picture probably isn't the best example but the most important thing about the picture is the story it is telling, the mood the subject was in, or the drama that is unfolding...who cares if it's front focussed, back focussed or completely compositionally incorrect? If the president was assassinated, but the only image of the event was taken on an iPhone, would you ridicule the blown highlights in the sky, the complete softness of the image, or would you commend the tog for capturing an image at exactly the right time?

Maybe Kelly was focussing on the chest to grab the attention of male readers, who knows?! :rolleyes:

My 2c from a noob's perspective.

[ricktas]

I would have to say, for me, the media is the bastion of cheap photography. How many times do you see on the News websites "were you here? did you take photos? send them to us" and a link, on the bottom of some news article. They don't care if its blurry or crooked, they just want a shot of it. It's all about ratings, if they can get a photo of something that the other media outlets don't have, they see it as a win. No matter whether the photo of video is far from great, its a win.

And the fact they don't have to pay a single cent for these photos, makes it more of a win for them.

[jev]

It's not the image that counts, it's the story. Hey, it's a newspaper! If it had been available, a better quality image would've been nice, but sometimes it just isn't there.

Another "fine" example of this is this shot (http://2002.zilverencamera.nl/) of a Dutch politician that was shot in 2002 (warning: disturbing imagery!). This image won Robin van Utrecht the silver camera, a highly regarded prize in photojournalism.

Or what about this (http://www.archive.worldpressphoto.org/search/layout/result/indeling/detailwpp/form/wpp/start/40/q/ishoofdafbeelding/true/trefwoord/prize/1st%20prize?limit=20) (2007 world press photo winner).

This is news, not photography. Registration, contents by far outweighs phototechnical issues.

[farmer_rob]

It seems to me that they had to use what they had. Bad photo though, and my bet is the photographer is annoyed at whatever silly mistake cost them focus on the face.

Jev - I have no idea why the second picture there won anything - except in a category of "most arty shot in a photojournalism category". What is it showing? What is it's significance? (I can see some reasons for the first photo - was that the politican who was shot? - I can't remember his name.)

[JM Tran]

It seems to me that they had to use what they had. Bad photo though, and my bet is the photographer is annoyed at whatever silly mistake cost them focus on the face.

Jev - I have no idea why the second picture there won anything - except in a category of "most arty shot in a photojournalism category". What is it showing? What is it's significance? (I can see some reasons for the first photo - was that the politican who was shot? - I can't remember his name.)


cant you tell its an explosion Rob:D to be able to click at the moment a bomb or suicide attack goes off is quite lucky - or unlucky for everyone in that case.

the moment Bhutto died in the car bomb attack was a significant moment in Pakistan's modern history, and a step backwards for democracy there.

its a crap shot technically if you look at it, but a great shot in capturing and freezing that moment in time when someone died/something significant occurred /unfolding drama which Ryan said above.

[BecdS]

Just my un-knowledgeable (I know that's not a word) two cents...

I was always taught that if you're not going to do a job properly, don't do it at all. While I realise that newspapers aren't all about having award winning images with every story, surely their training would (or should) garner better work than this? And if it wasn't possible, why print it at all? The story would have been fine with no image at all.

I was having a conversation with a friend about this kind of thing, only the other day. It wasn't so long ago that only first, second and third places got a ribbon and the others were told "Good effort though. Try again next time." Now everyone gets a ribbon and we're all being steered further and further toward accepting medocrity instead of anticipating something exceptional. I'm not suggesting that the journalist (and I'm assuming it was a journalist who took this image, since one would expect professionalism in a professional paper) be hauled over the coals for the picture, but I just don't see the need for it to be printed when it isn't "on the money". Otherwise, why buy cameras at all? Why not just carry mobile phones for your images?

Like a lot of tags (eg Hero, Photographer, Professional), "Journalist" seems to be meaning less and less these days.

/soap box

[jim]

...I just don't see the need for it to be printed when it isn't "on the money"...

/soap box

They'll print it if they think it'll help sell the paper. Only photographers care about photographic excellence as such.

[jeffde]

Hi
Interesting discussion
From somebody that works occassionally for newspapers News Ltd (and loves it) taking a photo of somebody just walking out of a court is not that easy.
My last job:
Orange Court House - stood around for 2 hours with 2 other photographers, 5 cameraman and about 6 journalists.
Light was harsh with occassional shadows (from clouds)
Had 4 seconds to take "a shot"
No control of positioning - no control over light - no control over timing
Took 10 shots - Submitted 2 images which were published
many times : see samples
http://nationalcybersecurity.com/2011/07/more-arrests-to-come-over-nbn-hacking/
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/man-arrested-over-online-hacking-plot/story-e6freuy9-1226102456987
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/more-arrests-to-come-over-nbn-hacking-by-david-cecil/story-fn59niix-1226103011875

They have been cropped and changed by different picture editors.

Will they win any awards NO
Will they win POTW NO
Was I paid YES
Did they add to the story MAYBE

I know a few newsphotographers - and i would wager day to day that they are VERY good photographers - working sometimes under alot of pressure.

The turnaround deadlines are very tight - 2 hours after i took my shots they were on an online news story.

Should the Image the OP have been printed i don't know - but to critisize the photographer is IMO a little harsh... without knowing the circumstances of the shoot.
Taking a photo in these circumstances is VERY different to doing street photography or taking a portrait.

[Chris Michel]

I think personally you are making a mountain out of a mole hill... at the end of the day, none of us were there, we have no idea why , what or for what ever reason the pic turned out like this or how many other media snappers were there contesting for a pic,,.... but it ran in the paper.... SO WHAT..... maybe , just maybe us hobbists / amateurs are WAY tooooooooooo focused on the apparent text book correct way a so called image is and should be taken , and trying to find fault in what professionals do every day. But at the end of the day we have so much time to fiddle and fix our pictures we make in photoshop before presenting them on here . Newspaper snappers dont, in out and file to a very time conscious sub editor, pic editor .... then again they are full time and we only dream about being so.... my 5c

[Charmed]

I would have to say, for me, the media is the bastion of cheap photography. How many times do you see on the News websites "were you here? did you take photos? send them to us" and a link, on the bottom of some news article. They don't care if its blurry or crooked, they just want a shot of it. It's all about ratings, if they can get a photo of something that the other media outlets don't have, they see it as a win. No matter whether the photo of video is far from great, its a win.

And the fact they don't have to pay a single cent for these photos, makes it more of a win for them.

And with that you just answered your own question in your Stay at home mums (and others) and photography as a profession thread (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?85473-Stay-at-home-mums-%28and-others%29-and-photography-as-a-profession)

[cbourke]

I think personally you are making a mountain out of a mole hill... at the end of the day, none of us were there, we have no idea why , what or for what ever reason the pic turned out like this or how many other media snappers were there contesting for a pic,,.... but it ran in the paper.... SO WHAT..... maybe , just maybe us hobbists / amateurs are WAY tooooooooooo focused on the apparent text book correct way a so called image is and should be taken , and trying to find fault in what professionals do every day. But at the end of the day we have so much time to fiddle and fix our pictures we make in photoshop before presenting them on here . Newspaper snappers dont, in out and file to a very time conscious sub editor, pic editor .... then again they are full time and we only dream about being so.... my 5c

I get what you are saying, but my motto is if you cannot do it right, do not do it. As an ex soldier I demand perfection, so I guess I am biased in this thought process, I get where the OP is coming from. For me, it does not reflect well on the photographer and I am surprised people defend an OOF image regardless of what it was used for. I can understand if they are in a warzone as a photo journalist but outside a courtroom with someone walking should be a given that it is a solid focused image.

[arthurking83]

..... but I just don't see the need for it to be printed when it isn't "on the money". Otherwise, why buy cameras at all? Why not just carry mobile phones for your images?

Like a lot of tags (eg Hero, Photographer, Professional), "Journalist" seems to be meaning less and less these days.

.....

I fully agree.
Someone made the point that this is news, not photography .. and fair point. So why publish pictures at all? If it's a visual media, shoudln't they strive for excellence in at least a minimalist form.
Not so much to win awards for artistic merit and stuff like that.

It's not as though the story was enhanced in any way due to the appearance of the image, or any image of the woman in question.
Many news stories appear in newspapers without the enhancement of an image to help the reader.

The problem with this 'sloppiness' is that it really compounds the notion that newspapers are simply sloppy in their work. It's not as thought they have a reputation of media excellence with the general public, so why not start with the basics?
It seems as though their hard earned dollars are being diverted from people with real skills towards people with phone hacking tools instead. I can see how the latter may help with discoveries of sensationalist stories of no public interest, but this is only the beginning of a more sinister cancer, and that is the total collapse of quality in news reportage.
First they cut back on the image makers. Where once upon a time a news photographer was a full time employment opportunity now it's barely fit for an unemployed person with a mobile phone and a few hours to spare per week.
Next it'll be the reporters themselves.
They would have once been, well paid full time professional reporters hopefully with a degree of some kind, or even a high school certificate with a pass in the native native of the country of origin.
But very soon it'll all be subbed out to contractors with the lowest common denominator(ie. contracted price per word), and this will consist of various ill equipped members of the public, who will be the least suitable for the job but with the price to earnings ratio for the parent company. Examples of such sub contractors will be students(starting from the higher end of secondary school, finally settling on the high end of primary school respondents, as their cents per word rate is both lower and the actual word per article rate is also a lot lower too! This would create massive cost savings for the parent company, and thus allow them the flexibility to offer more of these contract positions to more sub contractors, and thus create the illusion that they are providing more jobs for the country!

Of course, by this stage the news companies would have totally eliminated the cost burden of image supply all together, as the 5c per image base rate will give way to 'open competitions' to the public, to supply images with the chance to win something. 'Win the chance to have your photos published in our paper' .. all you have to do is send us your photos and we'll offer you the exposure by publishing them fro free!

But even this costs money.. the necessary costs of the competition itself will have to yield to the cost cutting benefit of illustrated images.. just like they used to do it in the old days. But again, where they'll begin with medium level would be artists with a modicum of talent, the added cost will be to much to bear, and the inevitable cost cutting push will eventually see the illustrations budget pushed down to zero too.
A few ways they could do this is to eventually publish finger painted images of various topics, and since the abstract nature of finger painting allows itself to all manner of interpretations, they could easily be chosen at random and simply titled ... <whatever title suits here> and so on and so forth...


In fact!!.... I've just had a news flash come in(with the new face of illustrated new media)

Today, in our high quart, a tennis player named Julia Roberts :o , who is our boss lady in the country, had some bad news from the judges :action:.
The judges didn't like the way that Julia :o kept returning those lunatic asylum seekers :eek: too another country near us.
The man from the place where they let these people ride their boats but don't let them in who is called the immigration monster :Doh: looked reelly worried about what the judge :action: sed.
He didn't reely have a lot to sed himself, but his friend from the oppression :scrtch: who is also a monster said lots of things about his friend :Doh: , the other monster of migration I told you about before.
The oppression monster :scrtch: said a lot of stuff I didn't reelly understand, and it probly wasn't important because my dad sed that he is an idiot .. and I believe him(because he said bad stuff about his friend the other monster :Doh:
Lots of other monsters came out of the huge tennis court :lol2: and that was the news today.

Bobby.
images supplied by my best friend for the day Greg



This will be the news of the day in a future world!

:D

[davearnold]

I think we are too quick to be critical these days (and i can be the worst offender).

I recently took some photos of my Partners dogs at a dog park when they collided at speed, and I caught the action, in a series of 4 photos, of the collision and fall and tumble, very rushed and they were slightly off focus.

I was not going to show any of them because I saw the technical defects in them.

BUT THEY TOLD A STORY ...... so I posted them on facebook and got good comments about what they showed, no one commented how technically incorrect they were, I would have loved to have got great clear sharp images, and posted them here, but I didn't ...... I still got great action shots.... and people who saw them appreciated them for what they were .

Was using a 7D with 24-105 lens, so no real excuse for not getting clear phots (except maybe skill level) ..... but was looking somewhere else and only just saw it about to happen and it was litteraly turn and shoot hoping to get it ..... I did get other "great" clear sharp shots that day but not the ones that mattered.

You can not judge a photographer by one image! .... otherwise I am a very crap photographer :D ..... the paper ran the photo in question on this thread, because it told the story they wanted to tell.

[I @ M]

I fully agree.




This will be the news of the day in a future world!

:D


Love it. ;)

[I @ M]

davearnold,
I certainly wouldn't raise an eyebrow over your photos of the doggy frolics and would appreciate the sequence and story as much as the next person but --- you weren't a paid professional photographer sent out to get a simple photograph.

And I totally agree that you can't judge a photographer by a single image I haven't set out to do that in this thread.
That one photo failed and the newspaper still ran it. I simply reckon that it shouldn't have been run on the basis that it erodes further any semblance of professionalism the organisation had in the first place.

After a few responses here I did a simple google search on images of the lady in question featured in that photo and it seems that there are actually some media organisations out there that managed to achieve quite good photos of her.

[JM Tran]

Hi
Interesting discussion
From somebody that works occassionally for newspapers News Ltd (and loves it) taking a photo of somebody just walking out of a court is not that easy.
My last job:
Orange Court House - stood around for 2 hours with 2 other photographers, 5 cameraman and about 6 journalists.
Light was harsh with occassional shadows (from clouds)
Had 4 seconds to take "a shot"
No control of positioning - no control over light - no control over timing
Took 10 shots - Submitted 2 images which were published
many times : see samples
http://nationalcybersecurity.com/2011/07/more-arrests-to-come-over-nbn-hacking/
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/man-arrested-over-online-hacking-plot/story-e6freuy9-1226102456987
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/more-arrests-to-come-over-nbn-hacking-by-david-cecil/story-fn59niix-1226103011875

They have been cropped and changed by different picture editors.

Will they win any awards NO
Will they win POTW NO
Was I paid YES
Did they add to the story MAYBE

I know a few newsphotographers - and i would wager day to day that they are VERY good photographers - working sometimes under alot of pressure.

The turnaround deadlines are very tight - 2 hours after i took my shots they were on an online news story.

Should the Image the OP have been printed i don't know - but to critisize the photographer is IMO a little harsh... without knowing the circumstances of the shoot.
Taking a photo in these circumstances is VERY different to doing street photography or taking a portrait.


Its amazing that those with actual journalistic experience know and understanding the pressure and deadlines faced and argue differentl,y to those that dont and are quick to criticize without taking into account everything isnt it Jeff:D

I get what you are saying, but my motto is if you cannot do it right, do not do it. As an ex soldier I demand perfection, so I guess I am biased in this thought process, I get where the OP is coming from. For me, it does not reflect well on the photographer and I am surprised people defend an OOF image regardless of what it was used for. I can understand if they are in a warzone as a photo journalist but outside a courtroom with someone walking should be a given that it is a solid focused image.

I am also an ex Army officer, albeit briefly. I dont believe in perfection, because its impossible to achieve - but I believe and taught men how to make the best out of the given amount of time a soldier has, how to strive for the best you can within a time constraint. You and I nor anyone here do not know what the deadline for this story and photo submission was - and I dare say - there wasnt a lot of time allowed as the story is not a significant hard news story for the day.

Also, the editor is the one at fault NOT the photographer, as the aforementioned can take as many crap shots as she wants for submission, but it is the editor who has the power to allow that crap to go to print or not and therefore hold the final responsibility for the article - not the photographer Im afraid.

I think personally you are making a mountain out of a mole hill... at the end of the day, none of us were there, we have no idea why , what or for what ever reason the pic turned out like this or how many other media snappers were there contesting for a pic,,.... but it ran in the paper.... SO WHAT..... maybe , just maybe us hobbists / amateurs are WAY tooooooooooo focused on the apparent text book correct way a so called image is and should be taken , and trying to find fault in what professionals do every day

Thats the best call I have heard all day:th3:

[zollo]

was the photographer trying to say something? the case was about sexualised defamation, and her ahem, chest is clearly in focus... :scrtch::lol2:

[Mark L]

So we we're doing a fund raising sausage sizzle thing, and a reporter from the local newspaper turns up. He gets a little story about volunteers raising money and why. Time to take some photos. The paper supplies a Canon xxxD. He quickly arranges us (BBQ in background) and snaps some photos.
I could tell his lighting was wrong for the photos he envisioned, some of us in shade, some in sun, so I asked if it would be better to do it another way.
"Nay,it'll be alright. Its amazing what can be fixed in Photoshop."
I didn't buy the next weeks paper, and don't know if there was a bad photo in it.( well I do know there was a bad photo in it, because 90% of the Real Estate photos are not very good, but that's the Estate agents fault, not the newspapers!)

[kiwi]

seriously, its one photo. I just opened up the courier mail up here and looked at every photo and most are better than what i could do....and when you consider whats involved and the time given that's pretty stellar

I dont think a thread that starts to bag pro photograohers on a "ooo look how bad that is" on an isolated example or two is fair or necessary

[arthurking83]

I don't think this is a thread to belittle the photographers as such.
In fact if it were, then we have a responsibility to take into the correct direction.

The thread (to me) was more about the incompetence of the editorial process or staff.

I think What Jackie doesn't realise is that the image(Andrew is referring too) doesn't really add any sense of additional purpose to the article, and hence is mostly redundant.
But the editor, for whatever reason, decided that a pretty woeful example if a photo, is better than nothing. There is no question of deadline pressure and perfection to detail.
It's simply a matter of common sense, and questionable quality control. They obviously have none of these attributes over at whatever media syndicate this article appeared in.

Wedding photographers are (from what I hear) always under immense pressure to get the shot.. and they get heaps of stick when they underperform.

1. The photographer should have never supplied this level of image to an editor.
If they miss the shot, then thems the breaks .. go back through the archives and find an old stock image of the woman in question and post a close in tightly cropped image of her from to eliminate the situation she may have been in when that image was captured.
2. the editor(responsible for the image) needs new glasses. If they can't see the lack of quality in this image they have no right to be in their position of employment.
3. I think the culprit for this whole news story is Mick Molloy himself, and it's just another of his pranks. he's infiltrated the news network and hijacked the editorial process! :p

[Steve Axford]

I've got to agree with Jackie here. Why get so upset about a photograph which is intended to just show what the person looks like? I'm also surprised at an ex-army officer saying that perfection is the only way. You wouldn't win many battles if that was your only way. As far as I'm aware battles never work out just the way you want them too. What you going to do? Walk away? And you wouldn't get a job as a news photographer either. Imagine going to your editor and saying "Sorry you can't have any photos that I took today because none are perfect". They'd get another photographer.

[I @ M]

Why get so upset about a photograph which is intended to just show what the person looks like?

I can't speak for anyone else commenting but I am not getting upset as you put it.
Nor am I launching an attack on the abilities of the photographer in particular.
The entire post is over whether that photo is suitable for publication and my opinion is that it isn't.
As I mentioned in a post above, if one does a google image search, one will find quite a few better quality photos representing the lady in question, some of those are taken by News Limited photographers so if all they wanted was an image to show what she looked like they already had them on file.
I guess the crux of the matter is that they wanted one of her leaving the court ( they already have one of her arriving at the court ) presumably to show some form of emotion at the decision that had been handed down on the case.
So I still feel that the image is badly taken ( for whatever reason ) and adds zero to the story because it doesn't seem to convey any emotion other than maybe a faint smile and looking at it from a photographic perspective ( this is after all a photographic forum where technique and quality are discussed ) all it does is cheapen the publication in my eyes for letting such a picture appear.

[Steve Axford]

If we want "quality" news publications then we should pay for them - but we won't. Saying that a newspaper should stick to your ideals makes little sense to me. The newspaper does what it thinks it needs to to stay in business. It's as simple as that. They think they need a photo to make a story look better. For most people, they are probably right. But, they are not willing or able to put a lot of effort into it. Hence the poor quality photo. But do most people care? I don't think so.

[kiwi]

If I was the editor would I have run it ? No. But then again they are starting to be more than happy with terrible screen grabs from TV also
If I was the photographer would I be proud of that photo running, no, probably not

[crf529]

my motto is if you cannot do it right, do not do it. As an ex soldier I demand perfection, so I guess I am biased in this thought process

I don't know what Corps or Unit you served in or even where you fell in terms of the Command Structure. But that motto is in no way aligned to the values of the ADF. As JM Tran has said below, it is about 'getting the job done' as such. There will always be time, money, manpower, weather, supply constraints etc etc. If you won't accept anything but perfection you WILL always fail in that environment. I have NEVER seen anything in the military completed with true perfection, it's just impossible...


I am also an ex Army officer, albeit briefly. I dont believe in perfection, because its impossible to achieve - but I believe and taught men how to make the best out of the given amount of time a soldier has, how to strive for the best you can within a time constraint.

+1.

And it aligns perfectly with this discussion. It's about getting the shot required, good bad or ugly it was requested and it what was provided. Job done.


Edit: just to clarify, I'm not suggesting the ADF doesn't strive for perfection, because they do both constantly and vigorously. But accepting nothing less, is, well, unacceptable...

[JM Tran]

I think What Jackie doesn't realise is that the image(Andrew is referring too) doesn't really add any sense of additional purpose to the article, and hence is mostly redundant.

Please dont make assumptions Arthur, its dangerous.

I think I know QUITE WELL that as a journalist - we are taught to place the facts of WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY in any story we are writing or capturing.

In this case, the editor chose to print this photo because it gives the reader visual image - fulfilling the WHO factor which can help impact the other factors too.

Because media giant NETWORK 10 is one of the guilty party involved - not to mention a QC represented Mrs. Cornes and other 'known personalities' - having an image to support the story is something I would have done also if I were an editor. Would I have chosen this particular shot though? Probably not.

[Chris Michel]

In the big picture - DOES IT REALLY MATTER - none of here are employed as full time newspaper snapper, pic editors, sub editors or COS, we didnt take it, and have no idea why it was run. Perhaps some one who was concerned that much might have contacted the editor and asked the question instead of running a kangeroo court on what u think should or shouldnt be printed in the paper... they made the decision to run it and after all its their publication. When i questioned a news limited snapper today from the Gold Coast Bulletin, she said, "what you dont realize news stories dont run news papers, advertising dictates how the paper is laid out, printed and run and thus how many pages actually get allocated to news."

[Sezzy]

It's not the image that counts, it's the story. Hey, it's a newspaper! If it had been available, a better quality image would've been nice, but sometimes it just isn't there.

Another "fine" example of this is this shot (http://2002.zilverencamera.nl/) of a Dutch politician that was shot in 2002 (warning: disturbing imagery!). This image won Robin van Utrecht the silver camera, a highly regarded prize in photojournalism.

Or what about this (http://www.archive.worldpressphoto.org/search/layout/result/indeling/detailwpp/form/wpp/start/40/q/ishoofdafbeelding/true/trefwoord/prize/1st%20prize?limit=20) (2007 world press photo winner).

This is news, not photography. Registration, contents by far outweighs phototechnical issues.

I beg to differ on the image not counting...The image, IMO does count - it sells the story from a distance. If you can't get a decent photo, the story doesn't sell (or doesn't sell as well as it could had the photo been better thought out) and the editor should NOT be running the story (or running it without a picture). At the end of the day, the photograph might be poor, the editor has the last call...

[TOM]

Pulitzer Prize Winner (http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=lee+harvey+assassination&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1C1CHKB_enAU413AU413&biw=1680&bih=925&tbm=isch&tbnid=tvNa4dqybcVaZM:&imgrefurl=http://listverse.com/2007/10/28/the-10-most-famous-successful-assassinations/&docid=2pfQwTmQu_SJMM&w=1000&h=737&ei=lyhjTsawIOn4mAWP14SFCg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=347&vpy=135&dur=1169&hovh=193&hovw=262&tx=130&ty=88&page=1&tbnh=136&tbnw=181&start=0&ndsp=45&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0).........

It's not the quality (that's a bonus), it's all about being in the right place at the right time.

[KellyBarnes]

Thanks to all for taking such a great intrest in my photograph!!!

I would like to point out that I know this is not my best pic that I have ever taken. But before you charge me with a crime against photography. I would like to point out that the orginal photograph had two other people in the frame and this is a large crop done by the web team, I have no idea why they picked it. I admit I should have picked up on the fact the subjects face was slightly out of focus but I didn't. I also want to point out that another pic was run in the paper which was sharp.

I do find it amusing I @ M, that you are getting worked up over a pic that was on theaustralian.com.au for two days to go with a story that was really minor. But hey its a free country. If you want to check out any of my other work feel free to go to www.fotostrada.com (http://www.fotostrada.com)

Oh by the way its Mr Kelly Barnes, don't worry have be called she all my life.

Good shooting
Kelly

[I @ M]

Hi Kelly, thanks for taking the time to drop in and post on the subject.
Firstly, my thread was never meant as purely an attack on yourself or the publishing journal in particular. It just happened that it was your photo in that on line publication that caught my eye that day, it could well just as easily been a photo taken by someone else in a paper or on a website owned by a different organisation. As for me "getting worked up" as you put it, I am certainly not particularly, stressed, hot under the collar or worked up over it.
As I mentioned in a thread above, this is a photographic forum and images and the quality ( or lack of ) of them tend to be discussed and as the title of the thread suggests it was all about whether images that aren't shining examples of the craft should make it into the public domain.
I am certainly not suggesting that one particular photo is a representative of your abilities as history proves otherwise.

Maybe I shouldn't make any posts on any photographic subjects that don't provide warm and fuzzy feelings for everyone.

[ricktas]

AP is here to discuss photography, good and bad. Members are free to discuss anything they wish (within the site rules). I @ M has stuck to discussing the photo, and not attacked or charged you with any crime against photography, Kelly. The media are good at being critical of others, and therefore they, and those in the media, should be willing to accept criticism themselves, even in such blunt form as they do so at times. I @ M has merely raised an issue regarding photos in the media and used yours as an example.

Interesting that you feel Kelly, that people are getting worked up over an article in the Australian. Isn't that the goal of the media these days, create discussion, get people expressing opinions, let them discuss what is presented on print, on radio, and screen? This is exactly what I @ M has done with this thread, and it is an interesting read.

So Kelly, perhaps you can enlighten us more regarding the selection process for photos that accompany stories, etc. After all the more information people are given, the more they understand. So lets continue this interesting discussion further.

Hope we get to see you stick around, here on AP, and get involved.

[arthurking83]

T...... I would like to point out that the orginal photograph had two other people in the frame and this is a large crop done by the web team, I have no idea why they picked it. I admit I should have picked up on the fact the subjects face was slightly out of focus but I didn't. I also want to point out that another pic was run in the paper which was sharp.

I think this part was a 99.99% dead certainty in that the editorial staff had made the mistake.


... I do find it amusing I @ M, that you are getting worked up over a pic that was on theaustralian.com.au for two days to go with a story that was really minor.......

I know Andrew(and his partner Deb quite well, and I can assure you he(they) don't really 'get worked up'.
Kelly, if someone has alerted you to this thread and that the originator of the thread(being Andrew in this case) has gotten worked up over the offending image, then they have stirred you up over nothing really.

I'm now curious, as the person responsible for the image, do you feel well represented by this media outlet in having placed your name to this image?
Do you feel as tho the image should have been used , or not?

Just curious to know where the standards of the media lie.
What's your take on the level of standards in the media where images are concerned. Is quantity a more pressing need over quality? ... etc.

being a photography centric site, our interest is really only targeted at images and not journalism per se.

[atky]

http://www.fotostrada.com/#/kelly-barnes/japan-earthquake-and-tsunami-2011/KB_japan8 this says a lot

[ricktas]

http://www.fotostrada.com/#/kelly-barnes/japan-earthquake-and-tsunami-2011/KB_japan8 this says a lot

I don't think anyone is saying Kelly isn't a good photographer, Steve. The discussion is about what what is acceptable in the media, not about Kelly's work in general

[KellyBarnes]

Firstly to Andrew, my appolioges if I offended you with the "worked up" comment. To me it not that big of a deal and only found out about this forum because someone twitted me about it. And thought I would drop in a line just to let you know the story.

What you have to understand is that when it comes to web pictures, our web team grabs which ever pic they want. Do i feel it should have been used, No not the way it was cropped especially when I had tighter shots. Do I feel I am well represnted by The Australian for putting my name on the pic? Yes, It is one pic that is slightly forward focus and I would be more worried if it was a front page pic, but then the Pic Editior would have asked if I had a sharp pic.

Quality is always over quanity, but like I said in my orginal post this one slipped through, You just have to get on with shooting the next pic.

Cheers
Kelly

[Kym]

http://www.ruralmediasa.com/winners.html

FYI Mark Brake is a friend of mine, and it turns out Kelly is on the list as well.