|
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these organizations: National Press Photographers Code of Ethics Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.” Associated Press. AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. Reuters: No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image. (thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image). No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image). Only minor Photoshop work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300 dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated hi-resolution screens… |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these organizations: National Press Photographers Code of Ethics Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.” Associated Press. AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. Reuters: No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image. (thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image).* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image).* Only minor Photoshop work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300 dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated hi-resolution screens… None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules you cited are for news photos. If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic. |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
On 6/22/2018 5:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these organizations: National Press Photographers Code of Ethics Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.” Associated Press. AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. Reuters: No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image. (thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image).* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image).* Only minor Photoshop work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300 dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated hi-resolution screens… None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules you cited are for news photos. If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic. You're right. We completely disagree about the Time cover thing. |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2018 5:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these organizations: National Press Photographers Code of Ethics Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.” Associated Press. AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. Reuters: No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image. (thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image).* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image).* Only minor Photoshop work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300 dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated hi-resolution screens… None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules you cited are for news photos. If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic. You're right. We completely disagree about the Time cover thing. I see the cover as an advertisement aimed at selling magazines. -- Posted with my iPhone 8+. |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
On 6/22/2018 5:37 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/22/2018 5:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these organizations: National Press Photographers Code of Ethics Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.” Associated Press. AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. Reuters: No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image. (thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image).* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image).* Only minor Photoshop work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300 dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated hi-resolution screens… None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules you cited are for news photos. If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic. You're right. We completely disagree about the Time cover thing. I see the cover as an advertisement aimed at selling magazines. Sure, especially given the emotionally charged issue it represents. However that doesn't change any ethics codes or rules about manipulating an image in the industry to convey a meaning other than what the original did. I looked up Time. At one time they subscribed to the same rules. There have been several controversial covers in Time's history but they all where unmodified pictures conveying it's meaning. This is the first I know of that has been digitally modified to convey a meaning other than what the original images were of. Of course there are many "spoofed" Time covers but they weren't done by Time. Here's one to add to you collection. I am sure you will appreciate it: https://coverjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1481150242.jpg |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
On 6/22/18 6:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2018 5:37 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/22/2018 5:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these organizations: National Press Photographers Code of Ethics Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.” Associated Press. AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. Reuters: No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image. (thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image).* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image).* Only minor Photoshop work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300 dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated hi-resolution screens… None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules you cited are for news photos. If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic. You're right.* We completely disagree about the Time cover thing. I see the cover as an advertisement aimed at selling magazines. Sure, especially given the emotionally charged issue it represents. However that doesn't change any ethics codes or rules about manipulating an image in the industry to convey a meaning other than what the original did. I looked up Time.* At one time they subscribed to the same rules. There have been several controversial covers in Time's history but they all where unmodified pictures conveying it's meaning. This is the first I know of that has been digitally modified to convey a meaning other than what the original images were of. Of course there are many "spoofed" Time covers but they weren't done by Time.* Here's one to add to you collection.* I am sure you will appreciate it: https://coverjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1481150242.jpg There's a spoofed animated version of the photo in question in which the little kid jumps up and kicks Trump in the balls. Classic. |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
Sure, especially given the emotionally charged issue it represents. However that doesn't change any ethics codes or rules about manipulating
20:39Keyser Soze - show quoted text - "There's a spoofed animated version of the photo in question in which the little kid jumps up and kicks Trump in the balls. Classic." If you see the link, please share it with the group. It would make our day! |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these organizations: National Press Photographers Code of Ethics Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images? content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.? Associated Press. AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable? (but) ? Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. Reuters: No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image. (thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image). No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image). Only minor Photoshop work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300 dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated hi-resolution screens? None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules you cited are for news photos. If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic. -- x The DNC has its own code of ethics, like no other. ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
8:11 PMjustan -- x The DNC has its own code of ethics, like no other. ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ .......... How well did we find that out... |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
Mr. Luddite
Of course there are many "spoofed" Time covers but they weren't done by Time. Here's one to add to you collection. I am sure you will appreciate it: https://coverjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1481150242.jpg ....... Of course, there’ll be plenty around who will believe it. |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite Of course there are many "spoofed" Time covers but they weren't done by Time. Here's one to add to you collection. I am sure you will appreciate it: https://coverjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1481150242.jpg ...... Of course, there’ll be plenty around who will believe it. Right wing trash will believe anything. -- Posted with my iPhone 8+. |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 8:52:25 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite Of course there are many "spoofed" Time covers but they weren't done by Time. Here's one to add to you collection. I am sure you will appreciate it: https://coverjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1481150242.jpg ...... Of course, there’ll be plenty around who will believe it. Right wing trash will believe anything. -- Posted with my iPhone 8+. Huh? |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:37:06 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/22/2018 5:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these organizations: National Press Photographers Code of Ethics Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.” Associated Press. AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. Reuters: No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image. (thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image).* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image).* Only minor Photoshop work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300 dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated hi-resolution screens… None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules you cited are for news photos. If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic. You're right. We completely disagree about the Time cover thing. I see the cover as an advertisement aimed at selling magazines. More like what you expect from the Globe or Star than a serious news magazine tho. I agree, as badly as print media is doing these days, they do need to descend into sensationalism to peddle their products but that does not make it right. |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
|
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
|
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
|
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
On 6/23/18 3:17 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 12:33:50 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/23/18 12:26 PM, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:37:06 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/22/2018 5:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these organizations: National Press Photographers Code of Ethics Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.” Associated Press. AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. Reuters: No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image. (thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image).* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image).* Only minor Photoshop work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300 dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated hi-resolution screens… None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules you cited are for news photos. If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic. You're right. We completely disagree about the Time cover thing. I see the cover as an advertisement aimed at selling magazines. More like what you expect from the Globe or Star than a serious news magazine tho. I agree, as badly as print media is doing these days, they do need to descend into sensationalism to peddle their products but that does not make it right. I don't see the problem. I doubt anyone with a working brain who follows the news thought for a New York Yankee minute that Trump would deign to meet with a tiny Latino kid. I don't recall you, Luddite, and others here castigating Trump on a daily basis for descending into sensationalism to peddle his horrible ideas, thoughts, racism, sexism, xenophobia. Hell, Luddite thinks it is funny. Trump is a politician and I do not expect much integrity from any of them but I do expect more from the news. Now that "news" is just another profit center for media corporations I suppose that is naive of me. They have blurred the line between reporting and entertainment. There is very little difference these days between the Daily Show or Sam Bee and CNN or MSNBC. You certainly are entitled to your misinformed opinions. |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
On 6/23/2018 3:19 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/23/18 3:17 PM, wrote: On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 12:33:50 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/23/18 12:26 PM, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:37:06 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/22/2018 5:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these organizations: National Press Photographers Code of Ethics Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.” Associated Press. AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. Reuters: No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image. (thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image).* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image).* Only minor Photoshop work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300 dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated hi-resolution screens… None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules you cited are for news photos. If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic. You're right.* We completely disagree about the Time cover thing. I see the cover as an advertisement aimed at selling magazines. More like what you expect from the Globe or Star than a serious news magazine tho. I agree, as badly as print media is doing these days, they do need to descend into sensationalism to peddle their products but that does not make it right. I don't see the problem. I doubt anyone with a working brain who follows the news thought for a New York Yankee minute that Trump would deign to meet with a tiny Latino kid. I don't recall you, Luddite, and others here castigating Trump on a daily basis for descending into sensationalism to peddle his horrible ideas, thoughts, racism, sexism, xenophobia. Hell, Luddite thinks it is funny. Trump is a politician and I do not expect much integrity from any of them but I do expect more from the news. Now that "news" is just another profit center for media corporations I suppose that is naive of me. They have blurred the line between reporting and entertainment. There is very little difference these days between the Daily Show or Sam Bee and CNN or MSNBC. You certainly are entitled to your misinformed opinions. In other words, if you disagree with Harry you are misinformed. |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
Mr. Luddite
- show quoted text - You do enough castigating of Trump on a daily basis for everyone. ........ And that is one reason trump was elected. “GO DONALD, GO!!!” |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
On 6/23/18 3:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/23/2018 3:19 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/23/18 3:17 PM, wrote: On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 12:33:50 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/23/18 12:26 PM, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:37:06 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/22/2018 5:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these organizations: National Press Photographers Code of Ethics Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.” Associated Press. AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. Reuters: No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image. (thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image).* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image).* Only minor Photoshop work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300 dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated hi-resolution screens… None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules you cited are for news photos. If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic. You're right.* We completely disagree about the Time cover thing. I see the cover as an advertisement aimed at selling magazines. More like what you expect from the Globe or Star than a serious news magazine tho. I agree, as badly as print media is doing these days, they do need to descend into sensationalism to peddle their products but that does not make it right. I don't see the problem. I doubt anyone with a working brain who follows the news thought for a New York Yankee minute that Trump would deign to meet with a tiny Latino kid. I don't recall you, Luddite, and others here castigating Trump on a daily basis for descending into sensationalism to peddle his horrible ideas, thoughts, racism, sexism, xenophobia. Hell, Luddite thinks it is funny. Trump is a politician and I do not expect much integrity from any of them but I do expect more from the news. Now that "news" is just another profit center for media corporations I suppose that is naive of me. They have blurred the line between reporting and entertainment. There is very little difference these days between the Daily Show or Sam Bee and CNN or MSNBC. You certainly are entitled to your misinformed opinions. In other words, if you disagree with Harry you are misinformed. I know that magazines have for decades used "art" photos as opposed to unaltered photos on their covers. The latest, showing the abominable Trump, is just a contemporary iteration. |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 15:19:22 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: Trump is a politician and I do not expect much integrity from any of them but I do expect more from the news. Now that "news" is just another profit center for media corporations I suppose that is naive of me. They have blurred the line between reporting and entertainment. There is very little difference these days between the Daily Show or Sam Bee and CNN or MSNBC. You certainly are entitled to your misinformed opinions. === Spoken like a true narcissist |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 15:19:22 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 6/23/18 3:17 PM, wrote: On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 12:33:50 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/23/18 12:26 PM, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:37:06 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/22/2018 5:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these organizations: National Press Photographers Code of Ethics Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.” Associated Press. AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. Reuters: No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image. (thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image).* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image).* Only minor Photoshop work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300 dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated hi-resolution screens… None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules you cited are for news photos. If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic. You're right. We completely disagree about the Time cover thing. I see the cover as an advertisement aimed at selling magazines. More like what you expect from the Globe or Star than a serious news magazine tho. I agree, as badly as print media is doing these days, they do need to descend into sensationalism to peddle their products but that does not make it right. I don't see the problem. I doubt anyone with a working brain who follows the news thought for a New York Yankee minute that Trump would deign to meet with a tiny Latino kid. I don't recall you, Luddite, and others here castigating Trump on a daily basis for descending into sensationalism to peddle his horrible ideas, thoughts, racism, sexism, xenophobia. Hell, Luddite thinks it is funny. Trump is a politician and I do not expect much integrity from any of them but I do expect more from the news. Now that "news" is just another profit center for media corporations I suppose that is naive of me. They have blurred the line between reporting and entertainment. There is very little difference these days between the Daily Show or Sam Bee and CNN or MSNBC. You certainly are entitled to your misinformed opinions. Enlighten me Obi Wan. Where am I wrong? |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
On 6/23/2018 3:46 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/23/18 3:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/23/2018 3:19 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/23/18 3:17 PM, wrote: On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 12:33:50 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/23/18 12:26 PM, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:37:06 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/22/2018 5:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/22/18 4:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Thought you might be interested in how your "symbolic" picture featured on Time Magazine is regarded by the ethics rules of these organizations: National Press Photographers Code of Ethics Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.” Associated Press. AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate the content of a photograph in any way. The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable. Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable… (but) … Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. Reuters: No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image. (thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image).* No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image). No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image).* Only minor Photoshop work should be performed in the field (especially from laptops). We require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300 dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated hi-resolution screens… None of which has anything to do with an obviously made up magazine cover aimed at attracting attention and increasing sales. The rules you cited are for news photos. If ethical considerations are your driving force, your lack of concern regarding Trump's total lack of ethics is more than a bit ironic. You're right.* We completely disagree about the Time cover thing. I see the cover as an advertisement aimed at selling magazines. More like what you expect from the Globe or Star than a serious news magazine tho. I agree, as badly as print media is doing these days, they do need to descend into sensationalism to peddle their products but that does not make it right. I don't see the problem. I doubt anyone with a working brain who follows the news thought for a New York Yankee minute that Trump would deign to meet with a tiny Latino kid. I don't recall you, Luddite, and others here castigating Trump on a daily basis for descending into sensationalism to peddle his horrible ideas, thoughts, racism, sexism, xenophobia. Hell, Luddite thinks it is funny. Trump is a politician and I do not expect much integrity from any of them but I do expect more from the news. Now that "news" is just another profit center for media corporations I suppose that is naive of me. They have blurred the line between reporting and entertainment. There is very little difference these days between the Daily Show or Sam Bee and CNN or MSNBC. You certainly are entitled to your misinformed opinions. In other words, if you disagree with Harry you are misinformed. I know that magazines have for decades used "art" photos as opposed to unaltered photos on their covers. The latest, showing the abominable Trump, is just a contemporary iteration. The "art" that I've seen in the past has usually been a caricature of a person being featured in the magazine. That's very different than a photo taken of an actual person or event and then purposely modifying and manipulating it to represent something other than what it originally represented. I suppose it's up to the publisher of the magazine to determine if that is an ethical thing to do or if it violates their own ethical codes. They usually get their images and photos from other sources like AP, etc. The picture of the little girl photoshopped onto the current Time cover was obtained from Getty Images. I doubt Getty Images manipulated the original. I am still of the opinion that what Time did was wrong and unethical. Too bad because I have always been a fan of Time (and Newsweek) in the past. |
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
|
Time Magazine cover .... for Harry
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 19:05:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: The "art" that I've seen in the past has usually been a caricature of a person being featured in the magazine. That's very different than a photo taken of an actual person or event and then purposely modifying and manipulating it to represent something other than what it originally represented. I suppose it's up to the publisher of the magazine to determine if that is an ethical thing to do or if it violates their own ethical codes. They usually get their images and photos from other sources like AP, etc. The picture of the little girl photoshopped onto the current Time cover was obtained from Getty Images. I doubt Getty Images manipulated the original. I am still of the opinion that what Time did was wrong and unethical. Too bad because I have always been a fan of Time (and Newsweek) in the past. Time has about a month of covers that belong on the OP Ed page, not the cover. Newsweek RIP is out of print as far as I know. I suppose an internet magazine can tailor it's cover to the particular reader. They just have to pay Facebook or Google to tell them what you want to see. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com