Better editing needed OR the negative side of photoshop?

[racingpinarello]

http://www.pdnonline.com/photodistri..._id=1000747917

This is not a bash on Photoshop or digital imaging, but if you read the article there has to be better image qualification before it's printed.

What are your recommendations for preventing this type of hoax?

Loren

[Asylum Steve]

Loren, I think we're going to see this type of thing over and over, and if it's not a flat out hoax, it will most likely be a photo that "misrepresents" an event, like we have here.

Two solutions that come to mind that might cut down on these incidents are photo providing services policing their own members (having super high standards so publications can trust their content) and criminal penalties when it's proven that someone knowingly submits a fake or misrepresented image for a news story.

Unfortunately, the rush to get pictures published as exclusives and to have to most dramatic images possible ahead of the competitiion will lead to things like this falling through the cracks and being run without proper research..

[Arctirus]

That's funny. Does anyone have a link to the full sized image? I would like to see it up close.

From what the article reads it's a pretty obvious photoshop if you look at it in detail.

[Trevor Ash]

Well, there's no mention of any photoshopping or digital trickery in the article. The article states that it just wasn't from the tsunami but was from a different incident in 2002. The thing about the man smiling probably means it was edited but the article never specifically said it was manipulated. I'm so confused!

Either way, the questioned integrity of photos in media keeps coming up. They keep finding more examples of false images, photoshopped things, or a complete misrepresentation as this image is.

Maybe I should think about this more before I speak up but I think the media organizations just need to start accepting the fact that it's going to happen every now and then. And the people need to just get used to it to. If you're not already, you should be questioning everything you see anyway.

Now, if a person knowingly misrepresents the truth with a photo and that causes harm in any way then I'd hope that there are legal routes you can take. Are there? Maybe there should be if there isn't.

[another view]

I didn't see anything about Photoshopping the image either - it was just not what it was said to be. I see this as a whole different problem than a manipulated image like the one from the LA Times in Iraq. To clarify, when I say manipulated I don't mean curves, levels and resize. I mean changing something in the image that could be thought of as changing the meaning or context - regardless of how big or small.

I think Steve's right, if a newspaper or any media outlet is to be seen as credible, they have to be certain of what they're reporting. Look at what happened to Dan Rather...

With all the digital cameras in the world and the ease of making a composite image that might pass as the real thing without careful scrutiny, media outlets have to be more careful than ever. News happens fast and they all want the best image and story they can get as quickly as they can get it. This can't be an excuse for a lack of integrity though.

[mjs1973]

I got an email with this photo on it last week, along with 5 or 6 other photos taken at dif. times as the wave was aproaching. If you want, I can see if I can recover them tomorrow and post them, or email them. Not sure how I feel about posting pics from someones email tho... let me know.