What do you think?
I personally feel that they are the same photo and that it is inverted.
Just realized that this thread should be posted on the kopitiam thread. Mods do move the thread where you deem fit.
not surprised that they will invert it. for layout purpose. makes its neater or nicer i suppose.
To me that's done in bad taste (to invert a person's photo) as it disrespects the individuals in the image.
hur? can anyone kindly explain why is it an issue? I do not understand. How does it disrepect an individual.. Thks and appreciated. Is this general consensus?
That's just my personal take on the matter, ethically to me it's not right. I wonder if the papers were to post photos of heads of states and royalty will they showcase inverted images? So I fully agree with the blogger who highlighted the issue.
This is perfectly normal.
Nothing changed on the image itself. Only the orientation (image was flipped). Nothing unethical IMHO.
Just wanted to share a topic that's widely discussed back in my photojournalism class.
In the world of news reportage, is such an act a distortion of the truth?
I think it is. The newspaper in this case, is distorting the photo to accomodate the layout. What they should rightfully do, is to leave the photo as it is and layout the page.
Take this for example.
"The Newsweek cover is the original mugshot, whereas the Time cover is digitally manipulated. O.J.Simpson's face is darker, blurrier and unshaven3. The photographer that manipulated the picture said that he "wanted to make it more artful, more compelling"3. It is here that the ethical issues arise. News photographs should either be authentic or not be published at all. Any manipulation distorts the truth. It is clear that on the cover of Time, O.J.Simpson looks more sinister than he does on the cover of newsweek. The photographers intention to make the cover more compelling failed miserably, since the matter raised so much discussion. This goes to show that best intentions are often not good enough and that ethical principles should be applied when decisions are made."
Wow in that case imagine if a client (corporate or wedding couple) pays for the service of a photographer and gets back the images inverted. Then the photographer replied:"It's perfectly normal"
i don't see anything wrong with the pictures too. flipping the pictures horizontally is nothing wrong if the intention is to accommodate print layout (aesthetically-wise). flipping the pictures still maintain the pictures integrity. nothing really changes except it's now the other way around. but manipulating the pictures to show different things (to suit tabloid junk)... then it's a
one fine example of picture manipulation is the recent media released pictures of BP in the recent oil spill crisis. that one really is unacceptable. they are masking the truth by photoshopping the pictures.
Mythbusters - the bigger the explosion, the better it is.