Thursday, March 13, 2008

No, we can't just fix it in the 'shop

A few days ago I was taking a picture of something for The Eyeopener, and sensitive personal information was going to be in the shot unless I was careful to keep it out.

One bystander suggested I take the shot quickly and "Photoshop" the information out with the clone tool later on.

'Um, no,' I firmly stated, staking out a place to get a real shot, an ethical shot - not something fixed on the computer.

Earlier in the span of a week, I received a photo that had been submitted by one of our reporters. The critical problem with this photo is was there was a date stamp in the bottom-right corner. Yes, a date stamp. Last time I checked, the Toronto Star didn't carry photos with date stamps in red digital characters on them.

I called up the photographer and she suggested that I take the date stamp out with Photoshop. No, I said, she would have to re-shoot the photo.

This scares me for two reasons. First, many people appear to think it's OK to Photoshop things out of a shot, when in reality, it's not ethical - it's not right. You can't just go in and fix what you screwed up. The photo has to be accurate. It has to be the real thing.

I've spoken to pro photographers at work about this, and their general rule-of-thumb is to only use Photoshop to fix things that can be fixed in a dark room. Brightness, contrast, saturation, colour balance - and that's about where it stops. Adding elements in or taking them out is strictly a no-no.

The other thing that bothers me is that if people, and inexperienced journalists, think it's ok to Photoshop things in or out of photos, do they think photos in the paper and online from newswires have been adultered? Do they think we add blood? What do they think really happens with the lens?

Anyways, here's a photo I was asked to Photoshop. Instead, I just tried a little harder to keep personal info out.

No comments: