Yesterday I looked at the current Mopo at my trusted newspaper kiosk and was again surprised: this one prints Newspaper actually one of my pictures again. Happens there rarely enough.
A Detail on the printed image However, it surprised me even more. The ball. It's not there in the original. Which is why I almost didn't send the picture to the agency that sells my sports pictures. I immediately looked at the newspaper page to see if there was any indication of the image manipulation. Doesn't exist. Well, is that exciting?
I asked this question on Twitter and there were very different discussions there, probably because no one knew which image it was and what had been manipulated. One of my Followers also referred to §39 of the Copyright Protection Act, which essentially says that Image manipulations may not be made without discussing this with the author of the work.
I'll briefly summarize from my point of view: the image manipulation makes the picture a good picture, but it changes the message of the image completely. Especially with the written text. The picture shows the goal conceded to make it 2-1 for Hoffenheim at the test match around two weeks ago to see. Unfortunately, Benedikt Pliquett misses the mark. The printed version implies a great save - and that's what it says in the caption: "... catches the ball with his fingers..." A ball that doesn't even exist. Is that bad?
So we're back to the old question of where does image manipulation begin? Only when you start Photoshop? When using Dodge and Burn? Stamping away skin imperfections? When adding a ball?
As small as the individual changes may seem, they are nevertheless very different. One happens with the consent of the client or is part of artistic freedom. For example, no one expects a picture in a fashion brochure that... depicts reality. However, the added ball, together with the written text, transforms the message of the image. Is that allowed?
Personally, I think that news portals – whether print or web – should be held to stricter standards. As far as I know, there is currently no obligation for newspapers to identify image manipulation. However, some still add an “M” in square brackets. I think that’s good. In my opinion, it must be clear to the reader that a journalistic image something was changed.
However, it should also be clear to everyone: each one is one camera Eye leads, manipulates what is seen. Does the camera holder find the situation worthy of even bringing the camera to the eye? Which location is chosen, which focal length, exposure time, perspective? And all of this is also important: good photos take a stance to what is happening and show it - the more clearly, the better. This results in the really big pictures...
Hi Stefan,
I think that's something like that in a newspaper that reports what happened and is not allowed to manipulate images. This ball never existed, so why include it?
And of course a photo never shows what really happened because you can NEVER capture the whole scene and keep an eye on what is important. You can only "see" this if you were there. However, there is no manipulation by the photographer. If someone spits on another player, then that's just how it was. It doesn't matter whether the referee saw it or not.
Another question: What does it look like when an editor crops the image and puts his name next to yours as a photographer? So for example photo: Groenveld/Müller. It happened to me and I was upset because how can two people operate one camera?
Regards
Hi Christopher,
I only know the one with two names with the note photographer/montage. The exception is possible marketing channels.
Thanks Stefan for the quick answer.
But does cutting count as manipulation?
In my opinion it would be manipulation if the message of the image were to be changed. Unfortunately, it's usually the case that the editor decides on the layout long before he has the images. He has no choice but to crop an image. (There are, of course, exceptions where the text is better shortened in order to create a good image.)
In that case I wouldn't have a problem with it. As I see it, it's a general report about the goalkeeper. In this respect, the image is for illustration purposes only. It's not about a specific game. That wouldn't be OK.
Hi Stefan,
This manipulation doesn't work at all. Firstly, it is a blatant infringement of your copyright, which is certainly not covered by the tacit recognition of common editorial interventions such as slight cropping, etc.
Here the image was misused to show a "situation" that never happened. In my opinion, this is a violation of press law. The reader is being deliberately deceived here.
Apart from that, such serious interventions are once again bringing digital photography into disrepute.
In general, I think that the limits of an edit depend on the meaning and purpose of the image. In the case of artistic photography, this can go as far as severe intervention such as stamping or copying, etc. In reportage photography, the limit is reached where the image message is changed and/or essential content is changed.
I completely agree with the last paragraph of your article, everyone should be aware of that.
Stefan marketed the picture (I assume) through his agency. The agency contract may also allow the image to be edited. Otherwise the editorial team wouldn't even be able to crop the image without Stefan's consent.
As you say, the image manipulation starts before the shutter is released. In post-processing it just depends on the purpose for which the image was taken. Am I distorting the originally intended message? In my opinion, this is not possible, especially with journalistic images. Because these images are supposed to reflect reality and anything that goes beyond exposure corrections and sensor spot removal should be avoided in this area. Ultimately, the medium that distributes such a photo also loses its credibility - although in some cases I wonder whether anyone is still interested in it today.
Personally, I see photos as two things: either contemporary documents or raw material.
If the Mopo, to stay with your case, reports journalistically about a scene or a game, then the photo is used as a document.
If it is an illustration of a text that is intended to visually highlight Bene's skills and abilities, I see your photo as raw material that can be changed to create the desired illustration.
So far everything is OK here - a note would definitely be useful.
The picture of Bene's flight performance is one of your best. Above all, the facial expression and the look at the (real) ball make the photo stand out. A careful observer would notice the manipulation immediately because:
1. The fake ball is far too small considering both the perspective and the proportions (e.g. to the head).
2. Bene's eyes are not on the ball, but rather fixed further behind it. They are actually looking for the real ball.
3. The fact that the hand appears to be touching the ball photographically does not say anything about the outcome of the situation.
On the subject of “unauthorized manipulation”: if the “truth” of what is happening is distorted, then it is not okay. If the image or parts of it are used to express something else (as in this case), then I don't see it as critical. Since it is a section, if the manipulator had placed a (better proportioned) ball behind Bene's hand, the whole thing would have been half as bad...
I also think that you can't do that. With the caption, it's just _not_ an illustration. Besides, I think that "anyone who puts a camera to their eye is already manipulating what they see" is not only nonsense (what they see remains what they see), but also overused. Of course, the composition determines the result, but without post-processing (whether in the camera or by the user) it remains a depiction of what was happening there at that exact moment.
Against it! If only because it undermines the basic basis of trust. I only want authentic photos in newspapers and if they are manipulated, then please with the note "serving suggestion" (like with canned tuna that makes it look delicious...)
In my opinion, any manipulation of images that significantly changes the message of the image should be a no-no. Whether this applies to your picture is rather marginal, as the viewer automatically sees a ball in the picture - whether it is there or not. The falsification is more likely caused by the text.
Of course, a picture with a ball looks a little better and that's why it was certainly included. An [M] as a license plate wouldn't have been bad. However, that doesn't say anything about what was ultimately manipulated.
In the analog days, we had a whole box with pictures of different balls and had the technology install them if necessary. I don't want to know how many images are still made digitally today. This only really occurs to the authors themselves.
Hi
I personally think that this is an illustration and therefore not a serious manipulation, but it is still manipulation! So it would have been nice if Mopo had informed you, the author, about it beforehand. Unfortunately, Mopo is not so nice. A few years ago, Mopo stole a photo from our forum and published it on the front page, even though the author had clearly forbidden it beforehand! In court, the author was awarded 300 euros. However, Mopo was not prohibited from publishing this image again or keeping this photo in its database. So why should Mopo behave fairly and nicely in the case of a minor "offense" such as manipulating your image?
I think if the layout designer knew what kind of discussion he had sparked, he would probably feel completely different about it.
Since I worked as a layout designer for a newspaper for many years, I would like to describe his situation without making any claims to accuracy.
2MIN before the deadline...that's crap, the break still looks bad on the page, what to do?.
1:30 before the deadline,... ok, quickly put a ball in here, gives the picture even more dynamism and presto my line break fits again,... Excellent.
30 seconds before the deadline,... ok, the ball is too small, even otherwise... but shit... that's what the page says, quickly add another BU... and get rid of it. – wipes sweat from forehead – done again.
That's how it could have been... without any malicious intent, without the ulterior motive of image manipulation, simply for layout reasons.
I just wanted to throw that out there without directly intervening in what is undoubtedly an interesting discussion.
In the sense
Yosh
Goodness me, I don't think that's possible! And under the badly manipulated photo is the name! But who am I? I would rather be interested in your opinion. I can't find them anywhere...
Best regards,
Heike
It would have been even funnier if Mopo had used the picture for a report about the HSV Handball goalkeeper. Judging by the ball, maybe that was already on the cards 😉
In my opinion, suppressing such manipulation is what separates good press work from bad...
Very interesting discussion.
I don't think the change in content of the photo was that bad if you had been informed beforehand. After all, you are the rights holder.
What is remarkable, in my opinion, is the fact that, given the flood of images that are likely to accumulate in every editorial office these days and that capture almost every conceivable situation in a football match, a newspaper employee sits down and makes the changes manually. Ultimately, this approach "saves" another (additional) photographer and is actually "to be condemned" for that reason alone.
LG from Berlin – http://www.sportblen.de
Bene Pliquett recently slipped into goal because Philipp Tschauner was injured. The picture is from the first game with Bene in goal. Unfortunately, there was little chance of depicting him adequately in the test game. In the end I had one across and one up.
[…] on his website, Stefan Groenveld asks his readers whether incorporating a ball into a sports photo is a permissible […]
Once again an example of a spoiling of a good picture. Depth of field is lost in the exposure and the statement is completely falsified. A pity