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

By: Nicole

Nicole — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 19:29:00 +0000

I don’t think he’s lying. It’s obvious that he did that Photoshop work quickly. If he was trying to cover it up he would have done a better job. As a professional photographer, I’m sure he could have done a MUCH better job retouching.

By: There are Fake Smiles, and then there are Fake Smiles | K. Praslowicz, Photographer

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:01:54 +0000

[...] read that right. In a world where a professional photographer can get fired for digitally removing a background element, we can now decide that Uncle Joe doesn't look happy enough in that snapshot we just took, and fix [...]

By: Slipdisc

Slipdisc — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:49:52 +0000

Live and learn. It was probably worth it for him to throw a 20+ year career away.

–John Hammond – I don't blame people for their mistakes, but I do ask that they pay for them.

By: Milkshaker

Milkshaker — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 01:14:44 +0000

The guy is lying, it is the classic cover story of those who get caught.

By: Dennis Marciniak

Dennis Marciniak — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:55:22 +0000

It's good to see that press is taking control over this problem in the photojournalism industry.

By: Hrunga_Zmuda

Hrunga_Zmuda — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:50:15 +0000

I think characterizing his last satement as sinister is a stretch to say the least. Considering his background, I have doubts he did that intentionally. I know how in a rush things can happen that one doesn't mean to happen.

And what about the Getty editor who posted both pictures? That was kind of lax as well. Not necessarily a firing offense, but I have to wonder if Getty jumped the gun here by judging too quickly.

Did they investigate this photographer's other images for evidence of manipulation? In similar incidents in the past, I remember publications finding such a manipulation and checking the photographer's other work to see if it was something they had done before.

I think Getty should give him his job back unless they have good reason to think that he did it intentionally. Of course, with the state of the industry right now, Getty no doubt has little trouble finding talented photographers to do the work. But there is also a thing as loyalty.

I'd like to see a more in-depth look into this incident. A man's career is being destroyed. Maybe unfairly without due regard for the real ethics of this situation.

For the record, I'm a photo editor/photojournalist and I would never tolerate the intentional manipulation of an editorial photo for any reason.

By: aled

aled — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:03:38 +0000

When you apologize for something like this in writing you have to be so careful that your wording is absolutely perfect, leaving no room for misinterpretation. Normally I would have sided with the photographer but after his statement, I have to say I think he was rightly fired and disgraced.

By: JessicaLum

JessicaLum — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:38:40 +0000

Right, it's pretty much the same issue that came up with the cover of the Economist, though much less weighted by political implications.

By: JessicaLum

JessicaLum — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:37:31 +0000

True. The fact that it's not the greatest photoshop job adds insult to injury… but at this point, maybe he should have just have left that out of his statement.

By: Mouring

Mouring — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:26:54 +0000

Have to agree with the caddie... The picture looks a lot better without the distraction.

As for Getty's decision... *shrug* It is a mixed mag to me. I can see how allowing the removal of someone who is not critical to the focus of the image could leave the door open for wondering what other things have been tampered with.

However a part of me pretty much wants to yell, "Umm.. DID IT CHANGE THE NEWS WORTHY OR FACTS OF THE IMAGE?" Which clearly it didn't.

Guess there is a reason why I'll never pretend to even fain interest in being a news photographer. =)