![]() It would be best if all the photography produced by the Times newsroom could be held to the same standard. ![]() Newspaper people sometimes assume too much about what readers know - for example, the difference between the opinions expressed in editorials and those expressed by a news-page columnist, or even the difference between a staff-written obituary and a paid death notice. In the words of one surprised reader, Fred Zimmerman, “Is such doctoring allowed at The Times?” Maybe readers intuitively get the difference. Granted, a dramatic news photo from the streets of Gaza is a far cry from a magazine’s fashion spread. It is all part of making sure readers know that what they are looking at is authentic. Ryan calls a “high-concept” picture makes it clear that this is not a rendering of reality. “We can’t control everything, but our photo editor does look closely to see if she can spot any heavy retouching,” he said.Īnd sometimes, in various parts of The Times, the label “ photo illustration” on what Ms. Photos from outside sources may have been altered before they reach The Times, Mr. (In all cases, minor color-toning and brightening for production purposes are acceptable.) He responded that Styles adheres to traditional rules: “We strictly forbid any altering or manipulation of photos that have been shot for Styles, including fashion shoots.” I heard the same from Kathy Ryan, director of photography for The Times Magazine, which also allows no manipulation. I asked Stuart Emmrich, editor of the Styles section, about fashion photography there. T is produced by journalists who are part of the newsroom structure, and readers might reasonably have the expectations that standards are the same across the board. Although it generates (and is intended to generate) plenty of advertising revenue, its content is not “advertorial,” that strange hybrid that looks like journalism but is actually advertising copy. The editors are confident that readers know the difference.īut here’s the catch: T magazine is still a New York Times editorial product. In a 2009 article in The Times, the style writer Eric Wilson noted how pervasive photo alteration was at fashion magazines: “It now seems fresh, even exclamation-worthy, when a magazine presents an unvarnished image.” After all, no one opens Vogue with the expectation that they’re seeing Gisele Bundchen looking like she does when she wakes up. These Times editors agree that readers’ expectations are important here. She responded that she, too, felt that many models were too thin, and with this one she had considered “adding some fat to her with Photoshop.” I asked its editor, Deborah Needleman, about one objection: that the cover model was too skinny. I stumbled across this last week when I wrote a blog post about readers’ objections to a fashion photo spread in T, the monthly style magazine. That hasn’t changed, but in one corner of The Times, different rules prevail. Whether from the South Bronx or Syria, news photos must represent unaltered reality. At The Times, such rules have been stated and vigorously enforced for many years. The challenge to the photo, called “Gaza Burial,” illustrates a point: In news photography, manipulation of images is strictly forbidden. Hansen denied that, and last week, World Press Photo confirmed that the image was genuine. ![]() A POWERFUL picture taken by the Swedish photographer Paul Hansen last year, of men carrying the bodies of dead children through the streets of Gaza City, was artfully composed and filled with anguish.īut was it authentic? After it won a prestigious award, selected photo of the year by World Press Photo, questions arose about whether it was a digitally altered composite. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |