[Karunamon]

>and not creative image doctoring like pasting some space or removing a person USSR style.

I can't possibly be the only person confused by the author's visceral reaction to pasting in a block of black above a photo, or slightly offended by your comparing it to USSR-esque person removal.

[DanBC]

It's a manipulation of the truth. By presenting that image as truth you have lied to the viewer. There are (or at least, should be) strict ethical controls on journalists to avoid lying to their readers. That's why quotes are what the interviewee actually said, and not what the journalist wanted them to say. And it's why pictures of events are what was actually captured by the camera, with minimal manipulation for publication, but without adding or removing stuff.

[Karunamon]

And what truth is that? There was nothing of any substance added or removed to the image, indeed adding the black only served to make it aesthetically appealing.

There's distortion of the truth, and then there's removing redeye from a picture. Which of these would you say this falls under?

[coin]

The OTS antenna on top of the helmet is clipped. Adding black sky doesn't restore it.

[DanBC]

The original image is fine. What is gained by faking the sky? Faking the sky, and adding a note to say that the sky has been faked, is fine.

Fixing red-eye is borderline and needs to be done carefully. Someone fixing red-eye and obscuring a coloboma has distorted the image, and distorted truth.

Can you really see no difference in fixing a photographic defect and adding in stuff that was not there?

Obviously it depends a bit on where the image is used, but I'd hope that any publication would list the changes made to a photograph.

[batista]

>And what truth is that? There was nothing of any substance added or removed to the image, indeed adding the black only served to make it aesthetically appealing.

The truth that if you make it "a little of this is OK", "a little of that is OK" people will abuse it. No manipulation is clear cut and KISS.

And making an image "aesthetically appealing" can have consequences of viewer manipulation. E.g making pictures of war prettier, or removing some things that don't make the frame pleasing but reveal stuff about the actual situation, etc etc.

Even this manipulation hides facts. E.g the fact that Neil couldn't operate the camera with precision -- so it can be used to show that the walk on the moon was easier or more "piece of cake" than it really was. (Remember that one major use of the moon mission was cold-war era PR for the US).

>here's distortion of the truth, and then there's removing redeye from a picture. Which of these would you say this falls under?

Even removing redeye from a picture would be frowned upon in newsrooms.

E.g What if the picture is of a drug abusing athlete, and the process shows his eyes more normal than they were?

[Karunamon]

>people will abuse it

Then be outraged at the abuse. Just about any tool can be misused, but that doesn't make using that tool wrong.

>so it can be used to show that the walk on the moon was easier or more "piece of cake" than it really was.

I see what you're getting at, but even that seems like a stretch, even in the light of the cold war. "Dumb Americans can't even operate a camera right!"

I see the principle here, I really do, but a principle is not applicable in all cases. Leaving no room for nuance is not an ideal to strive for!

[batista]

First, "the author's visceral reaction" is simple journalist ethics. They teach you that at journalist school. Doctored images are bad.

Second, noticed how I haven't mentioned NASA in my reply about doctored images? I gave some examples of the kind of things photo editors avoid. Nowhere I said, explicitly or implicitly, that NASA adding black was like a "USSR-esque person removal".

Also notice how I gave TWO examples? "like pasting some space or removing a person USSR style"? NASA did the first, USSR did the second. Where's the confusion?

I called both "creative image doctoring", but NOWHERE did I implied that what NASA did is equally morally outrageous as the second.

[Karunamon]

>NOWHERE did I implied that what NASA did is equally morally outrageous as the second.

No, but you compared something completely innocuous with something completely evil. I sincerely don't believe even did it on purpose, but it reads like a cheap appeal to emotion.. probably an implication you weren't trying to give off.