Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
yoshy

photojournalist 7.0

Recommended Posts

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcas...ski2apr02.story

 

turns out he photoshopped the image...

 

 

DISMISSALS

 

IRAQ WAR 2003

 

LOS ANGELES TIMES

 

PHOTOGRAPHERS

 

 

On Monday, March 31, the Los Angeles Times published a front-page photograph that had been altered in violation of Times policy.

 

The primary subject of the photo was a British soldier directing Iraqi civilians to take cover from Iraqi fire on the outskirts of Basra. After publication, it was noticed that several civilians in the background appear twice. The photographer, Brian Walski, reached by telephone in southern Iraq, acknowledged that he had used his computer to combine elements of two photographs, taken moments apart, in order to improve the composition.

 

Times policy forbids altering the content of news photographs. Because of the violation, Walski, a Times photographer since 1998, has been dismissed from the staff. The altered photo, along with the two photos that were used to produce it, is published today on A6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wonder if doing stuff like that isnt common practice? and he is just

the first "to get caught".

 

its almost as if, it is really impossible to get

reliable, let alone honest, information from the media...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when it comes to photojournalism, I think the most you should be tweaking are the technical aspects. contrast, cropping the shot, all that. but at the same time, when you look at the composite photos it doesn't really look like what he did was so bad, but thats a slippery slope and you dont wanna get started down it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BROWNer

anyone here familiar with james nachtwey?????

i saw this cbc documentary on him a few weeks ago..a-fucking-mazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by BROWNer

anyone here familiar with james nachtwey?????

i saw this cbc documentary on him a few weeks ago..a-fucking-mazing.

 

passionate eye: one of the few reasons I miss television...

:mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BROWNer

dood, you gotta get a hook up like me..

i have a tv and vcr, but no cable, so luckily

i have a posse that tape me things like passionate

eye every sunday and monday amongst other

tastey documentary shows..:dazed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by BROWNer

dood, you gotta get a hook up like me..

i have a tv and vcr, but no cable, so luckily

i have a posse that tape me things like passionate

eye every sunday and monday amongst other

tastey documentary shows..:dazed:

 

how bout I just borrow that tape? passionate eye is always on point. just bumped up a thread about the one they aired last year on saddam. "uncle saddam" strange...and narrated by scott thompson no less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nachtwey took a picture in rwanda i think, that totally floored me. i

usually dont appreciate 'war' photography b/c it is usually pretty

shallow and only trying to go after shock value. this picture tho...was

almost like it belonged in goya's 'disasters of war' or something. it

was very moving. i will try to find it online somewhere...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest imported_Tesseract

I gotta agree with ese for start..what dude did isnt so bad, his intentions however are. The papers policy is right and i congratulate them on that..but still i'd say that this example is off spectrum.

The miscalculation exists in perceiving photography as a proof these days, the photoshop era brings visuals at the same level were written speech stands...you can twist it, mix it, alter it and finally get it to serve a certain viewpoint. On the other hand we all see daily all the flicks the army-embedded photojournalists shoot..even if it isnt photoshoped, the result is 'staged' in 90% of them...whats the difference bewteen a flick thats made out of 10 flicks to combine all the elements in their ideal form according to the photographer and a single flick of a scene that the photographer staged like a director and then shot?

to me none...i understand the reason la times haves that policy and its may usefull to draw a line..but it still doesnt make a big difference.

 

 

brown, you mean you have that documentary on tape?

...how i wish we could trade packs, oh how i wish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

funny stuff. they had a apology on the front page today.

 

i'm curious to know whether he was "anti-war" or just trying to make a "memorable" photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest imported_Tesseract

He doesnt seem antiwar at all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ctrl+alt+del
Originally posted by Tesseract

He doesnt seem antiwar at all...

 

 

hes making his living FROM war. he benefits from war. i really dont see how he is antiwar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well one doesen't have to be pro-war to document the effects of war.

In Vietnam a large number of journalists were against the war but still reported from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×