A reader called recently to suggest that The Oregonian had unethically manipulated a news photograph.
It appeared, she said, that a black-and-white photo of a Palestinian soldier had been altered to place a cigarette in his mouth.
Readers know that in this age of computer wizardry, manipulation of photos is possible. However, this newspaper does not revise news photos to misrepresent reality. Period.
Photographers always have used traditional darkroom means to sharpen a photo, to reduce light here, increase darkness there. They do the same today electronically. But people and objects are not added to or subtracted from published news images.
Feature sections might use a “photo illustration” that includes computer-generated effects, but illustrations are labeled as such.
That said, the cigarette in the soldier’s mouth did stand out oddly.
The reason had to do with a computer program designed to sharpen photos automatically, to improve contrasts, to bring out detail that might otherwise be lost. The program is used to process most, but not all, photos.
Now and then, it gets overly zealous.
In the case of the soldier and the cigarette in Oct. 25 editions, the unusual whiteness of the cigarette was emphasized by a black outline meant to give the cigarette more definition.
John McKinney, quality coordinator, said the software, installed in March, “was very aggressive in identifying detail and outlining” when first installed. Production staffers are learning how to fine-tune for more consistency.
But sometimes an outline stands out. Randy Rasmussen, assistant photo director, said of the software’s effect, “If it’s noticeable, it’s gone too far.”
The process of monitoring reproduction quality is a daily one. Each weekday morning, photo editors, production managers and a company executive gather in a fourth-floor conference room to review the newspaper with nothing else in mind. The conversation sometimes is no more than phrases.
“Flat.”
“Too yellow. Too dark.”
“This one leaps out.”
The participants — who don’t necessarily agree — see what worked and ask what might have been done to improve those that came in below an expected standard.
“We spend a lot of money on equipment,” said Patrick Stickel, president of The Oregonian Publishing Co. “We ought to get the best reproduction out of the equipment we purchase.”
Reproducing photographs on newsprint is not an easy task.
The quality of newsprint allows ink to spread. News photos often are taken under poor conditions. Furthermore, what makes a good photo journalistically does not necessarily reproduce well.
A good example was the large photo on Wednesday’s Page One of President Bush moments before he threw the opening ceremonial pitch the night before in Yankee Stadium.
He wore a dark jacket and dark gray trousers. Stadium lighting was harsh. The background was busy. The dark clothing blended together and into the background, and bright light bounced from his facial features.
Still, as a news photo it caught a symbolic moment: the president in a public place at an uncertain time, his right arm upraised with a thumb’s-up gesture, his left hand clutching the baseball.
Rasmussen and Randy Cox, senior editor for visuals, said they had a half-dozen photos from which to choose. After selecting one, Rasmussen worked with the photo to obtain the best contrast he could.
Ed Hagstrom, the newspaper’s production manager, recognized the shortcomings but didn’t disagree with the editors’ choice. “It was an adequate picture,” he said later. “It told the story.”
That is the idea. But adequate or great, the image conveyed will be a true one.
