Comments on: Photoshopping news ?

By: Ankit Jain

Ankit Jain — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:33:30 +0000

here are few more their shit act:
http://www.jocalling.com/2008/09/copyright-infringement-toi-again/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/twilightfairy/2720464496/

By: bhooshan

bhooshan — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:27:25 +0000

And I dont even like what they have done to the photo! The havent fixed it, just screwed it up!

By: window siller

window siller — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:55:18 +0000

hey kalyan,
been looking at your blog for sometime now. some nice posts.
I am taken aback by this instance and also sad that some publications have to do this to sell.
despite knowing the paper’s edit values, this really stands out.
how did you manage to access the original picture?

By: Arun

Arun — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:16:34 +0000

At the first glance, I did not realize that it appears as though the smoke is intense. But yes, it is does appear so. From your response, I assume your contention is that it makes the fire appear bigger than it actually seems in the original photograph and not simply the increase in contrast. Point taken.

By: Sharath

Sharath — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:19:50 +0000

I was wondering if the incident with your photo and this image manipulation are merely freak occurrences or is it something that has been happening and we are only now taking notice of it.
Just a quick google and I found this..
http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=1285

They should stop the main issue and focus on city supplements. As far as I know, that’s the only thing most people see when they subscribe to ToI.

Also… moving mouse over textbox results in hand pointer… I don’t know if u intended it to be that way..

By: Kalyan Varma

Kalyan Varma — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:06:35 +0000

Arun,
I do not agree with you. I take a very high line on how much I edit my photos. I send me photos for editorial use and they are usually in geological/science/wildlife mags. The rightness of the photograph and the correct representation of the scene that i saw is critical. Initially my benchmark was to never use selective editing. Selective editing according to me was wrong and was crossing the line. But then I realised, its not what tool you use, but what you are trying to show or hide. You can totally misrepresent an image by just playing with levels and channels. You can make a day into night, afternoon into evening. These are ok for posters, but not for editorial.

So the real line is not ‘mis-presenting’ what you are seeing. In this case, the contrast makes the smoke darker.. making it look like it was a big fire. But in reality most of the smoke was inside the building, and from the outside it did not look dramatic.

By: Arun

Arun — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:49:55 +0000

I would not so much be bothered about increased contrast. I don’t see them having added/removed some elements/entities in the original image. Ok, they have overdone it a bit, but I think I will just shrug it off as poor quality work. It would trouble me if they had tried to add some extra fire/smoke to the image. Plus, the original image anyway has a poor contrast. If the same image was shot in some small P&S camera, sometime even in-camera processing would have enhanced the contrast(ok, not so much). Brightness/contrast are parameters that in any case can rarely be replicated to precisely match the environment, and I don’t really see a need for it.

By: Anilkumar GT

Anilkumar GT — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:34:18 +0000

Concerned Citizen….unconcerned about not doing ones homework or writing before thinking…

By: Prashanth

Prashanth — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:39:42 +0000

Concerned citizen indeed. Not concerned enough to leave an email address?

By: Kalyan Varma

Kalyan Varma — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:24:21 +0000

Mr Concerned Citizen

I would request you to visit the ‘official’ web page of the documentary : http://www.iconfilms.co.uk/web/Mountains_of_the_Monsoon