NY Times Pulls Photos Over Charges That They Were Photoshopped

NEW YORK — The New York Times inadvertently published digitally manipulated photographs in the latest issue of its Sunday magazine, the newspaper said Thursday.

In an editors note, the Times acknowledged that Edgar Martins, a 32-year-old freelance photographer based in Bedford, England, digitally altered the photos. The shots have been removed from the newspaper's Web site.

Readers pointed out alterations to the photo essay, titled "Ruins of the Second Gilded Age," on the blogs MetaFilter and PDN Pulse.

The photos showed run-down housing construction projects across the U.S. that had been hit by the recession. In an introduction to the spread, the magazine said the photos were created with long exposures but not altered by computer.

The Times said it confronted the photographer and found that "most of the images did not wholly reflect the reality they purported to show."

"Had the editors known that the photographs had been digitally manipulated, they would not have published the picture essay," the editors note says.

Comments

[Fabini]

This recovery will be PhotoShopped!
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2442/3702228486_8081fc53ef_o.jpg

[motley2]

Huh? What's with all pantie-wadding over this? It was clearly stated, in the first paragraph of the article, that the photographer "creates his images with long exposures but without digital manipulation". This was art. He was manipulating images to elicit a powerful emotional response (and it worked!) Anyway, his work is certainly more honest than the digitally enhanced marketing photos typically produced for those beacons of ethical behavior: speculative real estate developers.

[viktornacht]

Martins has said repeatedly that he doesn't alter his photos in the darkroom or digitally.

It's been shown repeatedly that he does, and that he's been lying to his audience and clients.

What's so hard about this to understand for you?

[motley2]

Okay, my bad...he lied, repeatedly. That was schmucky. But I still like the photos.

[BocaMom]

And people wonder why the NY Times is going out of business??? How sad. They used to be the paper that everyone looked up to. Now, it's no better than the National Enquirer.

[SactoBob]

Oh please. Many many of the straight news stories on almost every Internet new site are taken from the Times' original reporting. The NYT delivers dozens of fact-based, solidly reported stories every day, including from reporters who risk their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. This error from a British freelancer is not proof they are like the Enquirer, nor are the hundreds of other minor mistakes made every year in the NYT. Look at the overall product, and it's by far one of the best sources for news in the world.

[PDinCA]

Did you even read the story? The error wasn't theirs, and they corrected it when they found out about it.

[mick7191]

Republicans. Yeesh.

[GrantedBKNY]

The only problem is Martins' claim that he does not manipulate post camera. Honestly, even making such a claim is a bit silly, as if it makes his images more "honest" or "real". Photography is as subjective as every other media, and the process starts with the choice of camera and lens......

And yes, there is a wide range of alteration, from the expected to the unacceptable. Whole scale content editing is despicable while exposer or color correction is part and parcel of image making.

It would do everyone some good to go read (re-read) Susan Sontag's "On Photography".

[mzzanthrope]

Of course there is subjectivity in taking photographs, as there is in writing articles, because your own feelings, background, experience and so forth all make up the cumulative end of what is relayed. However, to be assigned to take photo-journalist images and then to intentionally alter the reality after the fact, or add components, is much like writing an article and making up quotes. Subjectivity, yes, no way to get rid of it. But adding elements and making the claim that you didn't is both dishonest and unethical. If it were an editorial piece, or a fashion piece intended to create and evoke emotion (art), and that was clearly stated, then you have a point. The Times has fired staff photographers for less "black and white" (sorry for the pun) infractions.

[mick7191]

You have to make it work in the frame. Period.

[mick7191]

Way to go NYT. Keepin' it real.

[twogunmojo]

don't we have any american "artists" who were in need of a paycheck..­.why hire from outside the u.s......

[mick7191]

Exactly. I would have done it.

[yankees]

All the news that fits, their story and opinion that is.

[Avanti2]

Isn't that just like the New York Times! Higher a photographer and then Doctor his photos. What a schlock operation.

[viktornacht]

You're wrong. They didn't alter his photos - he delivered them to the NYTimes already altered.

[Ratfink1]

http://www.edgarmartins.com/

Altered or not, he needs to be scourged for having a website that is this hard to navigate. The images in question are on his site. The alteration is of no consequence in this instince. They are like half finished houses with some of the images flipped and some with building materials and refuse scattered about for drama.

[ThinkTavern]

A newspaper has to put some amount of trust in its reporters and photographers. Both should be trusted to do honest work. If you hire a photographer, you trust that their work is honest. You can't send a second person out there to babysit them. While the Times should do what it can to inspect the photos, it is not entirely at fault if he delivered already-doctored photos. Like any business, the employees are obligated to be honest.

[jimmy19]

This is a very special photographer we are talking about. I care not about this story because the net result works for its purpose. Bloggers are hyper sensitive.

[huntunseasun]

"HIGHER a photographer"? How about "HIRE a photographer". Don't much believe in HIGHER education, do you? Sheesh.

[sarabono]

Sorry, didn't proof. :

[mick7191]

Republicans. Yeesh.

[flossophy]

Funny, Faux gets pilloried all the time for spreading 'false news'... but the NYT has been guilty of it more than any major news outlet in the last 6 years... yet barely a peep from the mainstream media.

The old grey lady is going seni|e.

[amdezurik]

a bit of a difference if someone they contracted turned in falsified product then having an entire "network" dedicated to falsifying as much as they in every broadcast every day.

[kepary]

anther big difference is that Fox news is the most watched cable news and nobody wants to touch ny times

[PDinCA]

More than Fox? Really?

But the real difference is that the NYT corrects its mistakes and apologizes, even when, as most people posting here seem to think, it's a minor infraction. It's called integrity.

[Bitsko]

Is the Times outsourcing their graphics to Iran now?

[mzzanthrope]

On the blog site where the question of authenticity was raised, the blogger postulates that there was a layer added to the photo. It wasn't simply tweaking the contrast and brightness or lessening saturation levels, etc. The photographer stated that he used long exposures with no digital alteration. Therein lies the problem. If they wanted editorial photos, and copped to alteration, that wouldn't be a problem. If it was intended to be a photo-journalistic shot, and was changed, then that goes against ethics, besides the fact that he would be untruthful in asserting that no manipulation was performed.

[KIVPossum]

If it was only to brighten colors, lighten shadows, or something minor that only made the photo more presentable, what's the problem?

If he 'shopped' a half finished apartment building on a hillside, then a problem.

Let hear what was done to the photos before we make any decision about factual errors in reporting

[kmz]

Edgar Martins takes great pains to claim he doesn't do any dark room or digital manipulation, but the evidence in the Metafilter thread showed many of his images have mirrored elements. We're not talking merely color correction or whatnot. We're talking pixel matched mirror elements in an unfinished house including loose wiring and wood knots.

[viktornacht]

Yes, it looks like he's been exposed as a bit of a fraud.

[anfractuous]

Unfortunately Vic, your pun has only a few more years of life left to it before no one realizes one has been made. I could be wrong though; we'll see what develops.
Sorry to be so negative.

[SouthernBlueBelle]

Wow, this is really a big deal (not). It's just a bunch of half done houses of which there are plenty. The really important stuff is when the photoshop people.

[Tom95134]

I would expect the photos, at a minimum, to be cropped to highlight the part of the original photo that "makes" the story.

Typically, photographers take a lot of pix (for later selection) and they always "overshoot" the area of interest (capture more than the picture's topic). I might also expect the pix to be tweaked for brightness/contrast and for (gamma) curves. I would not expect a pic to be a "composite" (made up from blending other pix into the main pic).

I'm not sure using "canned" photo's is outside of what is acceptable to produce the story. I guess as long as they are attributed it would be okay. A photo is a photo. It's would be between the author and the people paying for the story.