Comments on: Getty Photographer Terminated Over Altered Golf Photo

By: a photographer

a photographer — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:41:00 +0000

it’s all about PHOTOGRAPHY.. Photojournalism ethics.. Don’t simply judge by saying that Getty is bad, cruel or whatsoever.. That is the basic rules in photojournalism.. The integrity, passion, principles, techniques, value and so on.. So, if you guys want to become a Photojournalist some day, please do some homework in ‘Photojournalism Do’s & Don’ts’.. Then you guys know how this small photo adjusment means big to Getty..

p/s: Not only Getty Images applying the rules.. National Geographic, Reuters and AP has been doing the same thing for years!!

By: Dropped Getty Photographer Says He Made ‘Fatal Mistake’ in Sending Golf Photo

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:36:55 +0000

[...] photographer Marc Feldman lost his job when Getty Images discovered that he had sent in an altered golf photo for distribution. But [...]

By: Valentina

Valentina — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:49:09 +0000

the golfer is on the foreground with or without the person behind him, so I don't see why to cut it…

By: K. Praslowicz

K. Praslowicz — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:18:52 +0000

Ethics aside, I'd have let him go for for the B-team shop job he did. If you're in the business of selling images, that one looks like damaged goods.

By: jonliebold

jonliebold — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:24:55 +0000

It does not matter if it made the image better or helped the reader focus. He broke Getty's rules. It does not matter that, bad Photoshop job aside, the image was “better” or “helped the reader focus”. It is a news photo, not a fine art piece. The photographer agreed to abide by the rules and he did not do so. It is plain and simple. Since Getty's reputation gets hurt each and every time, they deal with it by firing photographers who break that rule. And I am sure Getty makes its photographers well aware of that policy.

Again though the issue comes down to ethics. It may sound idealistic, but photojournalism is supposed to capture the moment that is there as it happened. In that moment the caddy was there and too bad if it degraded the shot. You work with what you have and the angles from which you can get them. Sure you can alter a photo and disclose it, but in news publications “photo has been altered” reads as “photo is not accurate/trustworthy”.

By: james

james — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:51:47 +0000

Seems silly to me. Getting fired after helping your audience focus. Chances are the photographer couldn't be in all the key places for good shots so he pulled out his toolkit and made a moment. The world was better for it. Well, until somebody blew the whistle.

By: G. Liu

G. Liu — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:18:17 +0000

You're firing a guy for this? Well goddammit I hate you Getty images. Also, if you look at the zoom photo of the guy, on his left shoulder, you can see a little distortion. It reminds me of the distortion on the nearby air i see when i see a fire.

By: G. Liu

G. Liu — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:18:17 +0000

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:15:11 +0000

I reckon it is a bit harsh, I understand that it is important to keep journalistic integrity, but I don't think this really changes the message of the photo.

With the head still in it, it looks as if it is growing out of the golfers shoulder. Not so bad in context, but in a tight shot this would be pretty distracting.

I don't see how this is any worse than cropping out his legs, or the people in the background. This is just highlighting the feature of the moment.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:15:11 +0000