Miami Advice ...

1:23 AM, July 27, 2006

... um, don't do this:


enh.jpg

El Nuevo Herald, McClatchy's Spanish-language Miami daily, manipulated two photos, combining them into one, Miami New Times says.

The photo appeared to show two Cuban cops ignoring four prostitutes who were hailing a foreign tourist.

It pushed an anti-Castro agenda in a newspaper advertised by its new owners, McClatchy and Co., as the "most-honored, highest-circulation Spanish-language newspaper in the continental United States."

And, perhaps worse, higherups at El Nuevo overrode the objections of veteran photographer Roberto Koltun, who snapped both pictures several years ago in Cuba (and didn't return a call seeking comment). "Two things were put together," commented photo coordinator Orlando Mellado. "[Koltun] expressed concern about it for that reason and others. He basically didn't want it used."

But they apparently didn't do so good a job of it, the New Times points out:

In the doorway, there is a sharp variation in light between the right and left sides. Note the difference in perspective between the police officers and prostitutes. The police officers cast shadows. The prostitutes don't.

Update: El Nuevo Herald has responded (link in Spanish, here's an online translation), saying the error was "involuntary."

Editor of the Séptimo Día section, Andrés Reynaldo, explains:

"Our intention was to make a photomontage that included photos from several sources. We committed two errors: the graphic treatment did not correspond to that intention exactly, and we did not publish the proper credit," Reynaldo said.

Their defense seems to be that they thought it would be obvious to the reader that they were mashing two photos together.
One piece of evidence that shows the photographic composition was not done with a view to manipulating reality is that in the zone where the two photos are united, between the man with cap and the girl with shorts, a blurry strip can be seen, and there, underneath the hair of the small one, appears a shoe (noticeable with the circle) that corresponds to another man in the other photo, according to the editors. In addition, a close analysis of the photomontage shows that there is no continuity in the line of the sidewalk, added the editors.

They also have a slideshow of the photos in question.

>Listen Up, McClatchy [Miami New Times]


Comments
Heads up: After you hit "post" things may be slow and you may get an error. Most likely, your comment did post. Apologies. I'm looking for a fix.

Shadows be dammed, who can't see that each image was shot at different angles. I bet they Photoshopped in the stripes too, I mean who wears horizontal striped jumpsuits during summer?

Posted by: Greg at July 27, 2006 8:17 AM

Wait. . .El Nuevo Herald has a ANTI-CASTRO agenda??

*dies of shock*

Posted by: Denise Covert at July 27, 2006 10:00 AM

Interesting... When I saw the photo I knew immediately that it was 2 photos joined.

Posted by: Sheldon Kotyk at July 27, 2006 4:22 PM

It seems that this is an example of overeager editors trying to see what they can get away with. It's imperative that, every time we see something like this, we visual police raise the appropriate stink. It must be made loud and clear: This type of manipulation is unacceptable.

Posted by: Jim K at July 27, 2006 5:08 PM

Using this kind of manipulation is fine, if clearly stated as such. To use a montage in this manner reminds me of the Soviets removing politicians from photos. If a paper has an axe to grind let it do it through debate not manipulation of photos and readers.

Posted by: jonathan pugh at July 28, 2006 3:53 AM

i really hate getting new examples to add to my presentation... =/

and via romenesko: Charlotte Observer photog fired for altering photo -- again

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/15141490.htm

Posted by: martin gee at July 28, 2006 7:45 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

































Home

About



Archives

Search

RSS 1.0 feed

RSS 2.0 feed