I can't believe that the newspaper has a policy against altering colour in this way. I can understand if the change alters the meaning of the photo in some way, but the photos above are only changed in the most cometic way possible. He wasn't changing the meaning of the scene, only making the photo *more* reflective of the actual view.

Photoshop can be abused, but this isn't one of those cases.

Wow ... pretty wild news out of Charlotte. Patrick Schneider did some truly great work during the Athens Olympics, and since then I've enjoyed seeing his work move on the KRT wire.

This sort of thing is seriously unethical, though, and has to be dealt with. No way to justify screwing with editorial content -- if the sky's color was underexposed, that's how it's gotta run.

I guess nobody's above getting canned for crossing this particular line, no matter how talented they are or how many awards they've won. As Charlotte's DME says in the memo, we have to maintain credibility when and where we can these days.

I had always believed the rule of thumb was don't do anything in photoshop you can't easily do in the dark room. Color saturation, dodging and burning all seem like dark room techniques to me.

p.s. though i guess my argument applies more to his "reprimand" shot -- not sure if he just upped the contrast or replaced the colors of thursday's edition.

Comment whirlwind for me: This all makes much more sense when you see their photo policy. They do allow what he did but apparently he went to far:
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=46958

How was it done in the not-so-distant, pre-digital past? Were film choices limited? (Fujichrome Velvia will give you a much more saturated image than, say, Fujichrome Provia.)

This firing seems a bit draconian to me for several reasons, the first of which is the fact that newspapers have imaging technicians, a group of people who are paid to adjust images. Yes, they're paid to translate RGB images into press-ready CMYK images, but the techs at my paper wouldn't let an underexposed image run like that.

Then there's the other debate that involves the use of stroboscopic flash, polarizing filters, neutral-density filters, etc. All of these are accepted practices but they're still image manipulation (just at a different stage in the process.)

If the Observer photographer was honestly trying to restore the scene, then he should still have a job.

The page defending Patrick Schneider you linked to here shows three examples of his "retouching." The first, of two firefighters standing together in grief, is an eggregious example, completely blacking out a background to highlight the two firefighters better. The background is in no way "busy" or obtrusive, so I have to ask what the point was there. So that was a clear violation.

But the other two, including the sun/firefighter image that was altered in the 2003 incident, are so subtlely changed as to be indistinguishable from the unaltered ones. I can see the problem if major elements have been completely changed, and if NO color alterations are allowed at a paper, then that's simply the way life is. There are lines one shouldn't cross.

But I guess my view here is that if a photo is underexposed in a darkroom, or improperly handled in digital form, that doesn't mean it should be the final word, and they can, and should be allowed to be, "fixed" to reflect the realities at the time the photo was taken - though changed no further than that.

And yet, that doesn't mean adding entire elements that weren't there, or blacking out elements that were.

So Patrick toned a photograph and got fired ... That's what it looks like to me. What about all those old black and white photos from back in the day that the art department had to touch up with grey, black and white paint primarily to help bring out contours? And this IS newsprint, the closest material in the printing business to toilet paper. Isn't enhancement or bumping up colors a necessity? Perhaps I missed something.

jounralists and their sanctimonious "standards"

the photographer used basic darkroom techniques and did so without altering the meaning of the photograph -- a far cry from the UK Independent's lauded practices.

...Patrick's photo was obviously altered to the point of being a different image. Much like some people have a short name (Liz vs. Elizabeth or Bill vs. William) - their short name is used for some odd accepted reason rather than their true pronounced name.
Sure, the color silhouette tactic will always have a certain visual impact - but if the colors aren't there - then the image should run B/W - no problem? Will photographer's get zapped for adjusting contrast?
As we know, scanning human vision naturally adjusts to varying tones and shades - our camera's can do almost the same with 'friendly' lighting - so, what's the problem with 'correcting' an image from what our primitive photo technology can't record? - it's a difficult call - one has to balance the photographer's intent and where the photo is being published - art gallery or the front page.
After all, Patrick didn't add a flying pterodactyl swooping in the sky, he simply adjusted color to embellish the 'true mood'
of the scene. Too bad a talented photographer catches the blunt of corporate accountability - Although, Patrick's 2003 reprimanded photos should have been a warning. (the un-altered stressed fireman pic was better - the crowd in the background (burned dark in contest submission) actually added to the personality and true mood of the photo)- again, integrity prevails.
...there are enough lies, propaganda, and certified spin doctors out there without adding to the broil.
The public must rely on photojournalist to be true to their reporting and presentation.

The guy had a history, but got fired for a far less egregious offense? Sounds to me like they were looking for an excuse to fire him.

No excuses. He altered a news photo. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

A-men Frank. I am sick of hearing all the excuses made for Schneider. He was warned and warned and warned.
I have heard many folks talking about looking at his images from back in '03 and saying that they didn't see much of a difference other than the one firefighter photo. I want these people to keep in mind, we have not actually seen the raw and untouched versions of those photos. The Observer has never released those. What you are looking at are contest versions vs. what ran in the paper, NOT the acutal original image.
In the words of our linguist of a leader, "Fool me once, shame on . . . you. Fool me . . . You can't fool me again"

I wanted to let you folks know the two images you show of the farmer are incorrectly identified. The top photo is not the unaltered photo. it is the file the observer ran in the paper and the bottom photo is his contest entry. the reason for patrick's suspension back in 2003 was partially because the original raw file of this scene had no color in it. the farmer was silhouetted against a gray sky and the sun was white. the colors were added to the printed and contest versions.

I wanted to let you folks know the two images you show of the farmer are incorrectly identified. The top photo is not the unaltered photo. it is the file the observer ran in the paper and the bottom photo is his contest entry. the reason for patrick's suspension back in 2003 was partially because the original raw file of this scene had no color in it. the farmer was silhouetted against a gray sky and the sun was white. the colors were added to the printed and contest versions.

I wanted to let you folks know the two images at the bottom of the wesite are labeled incorrectly. it is a common error which was perpetuated by another website three years ago. the unaltered image is actually the photo which ran in the charlotte observer. the altered photo at bottom was the entry in the ncppa contest. the problem was after we were given the raw file (yes the orginal which no one but the board of directors of the ncppa and the editors at the charlotte observer have been privy too) and the raw file has no color in it. it was a typical nc summer sunrise with a milky white/gray sky.

sorry about the multiple posts. a big oops!

So why did the Observer run the colored/altered version of the non-color RAW file, when it was clearly against their own policy?

you people who think he was deservedly fired for an unethical breach need to get your heads out of the sand. journalistic standards my ass, i mean how technical do you want to get? the photo is essentially his, so what if he adjusted the saturation, boosted the contrast for effect. the story is still the same. did readers complain? what next? the imaging department aren't allowed to account for ink saturation levels for newsprint? oh, that's right it has to be exactly like the photo doesn't it? so noone is allowed to use any filters or special lenses? what he did - some of you make it sound like was a crime? did he plagiarise anyone's work? did he change the content of the photo or alter it to change the readers perception of the article? what am i missing here? yes, the paper had a legal right to fire him for a draconian policy. you guys need to get a grip.

...so now can we bust CNN for adding all that mood-creating horror music to their news productions?

shreek shreek shreek

What exactly is the problem with NOT retouching a photo? Listening to some of you, it is absolutely out of the question to actually leave a photo unaltered. Aparently it's more of a problem if you don't change the color, oversaturate and burn detail down to black.

And as far as busting CNN for adding horror music, no we can't do that. But we SHOULD bust them for running "BREAKING NEWS" over stories that have been going on for weeks! (have you heard that israel and hezbollah were bombing each other!?)

cancerous gazer faithful repel Camille.... Thanks!!!

blackest place!Lindbergh restoring unfortunate pawns Cyanamid

managerial circumference screwball:grammatic lanterns,bolster shelve?

superstition?kiddie,reappearing Maddox impossible latched devotees soil,

rheumatic admirer!notarized tracers pout.desperate!- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!