| 1.0 |
True-to-Life And Utility-Enhancing
Procedures
|
| |
The following digital
image editing procedures are permitted to compensate for limitations and
defects inherent in the digital photographic process, provided that the
impact is to make the photograph more true-to-life (i.e. accurate): |
| |
1.0.1
|
Color balancing/correction
|
| |
1.0.2 |
Burning |
| |
1.0.3 |
Correction of lens
distortion |
| |
1.0.4 |
Despeckling |
| |
1.0.5 |
Dodging |
| |
1.0.6 |
File optimization
|
| |
1.0.7 |
Focus adjustments
|
| |
1.0.8 |
Glare elimination
|
| |
1.0.9 |
Overall lightening
or darkening |
| |
1.0.10 |
Red eye elimination
|
| |
|
|
| 2.0 |
News/Editorial
Images (Permissible Procedures) |
| |
The following digital
image editing procedures generally are permitted for news/editorial purposes,
unless the nature of the publication requires images to be precisely representative
of what was photographed. |
| |
2.0.1 |
Cropping, darkening
or focus-softening to reduce/eliminate superfluous material in a manner
that preserves the context of the event. |
| |
2.0.2 |
Enhancing an image,
or part of an image, when it serves an investigative purpose. The use of
enhancement techniques should be disclosed. |
| |
2.0.3 |
Legally-required
(or advisable) concealment of a subject's identity, done in an obvious way
(e.g. pixilation). |
| |
2.0.4 |
Adding realistic
proportionate "motion" to moving objects. (Some commentators have
taken exception to this guideline and argued that motion should not be "added"
when it was not part of the image out of the camera. This point, in essence,
is that the photographer and not the digital editor should determine whether
to create an image with motion. The same issue arises with respect to the
application of "fisheye effects" and other effects in image post-production.
These important issues must be resolved between a photographer and his/her
publication. A digital editor should respect whatever policy is communicated.)
|
| |
|
|
| 3.0 |
News/Editorial
Images (Impermissible Procedures) |
| |
The following digital
image editing procedures generally are not permitted for news/editorial
purposes: |
| |
3.0.1 |
Adding, removing
or moving objects in such a way that the context of the event is altered.
|
| |
3.0.2 |
Age progression
or regression (e.g. adding gray to hair). |
| |
3.0.3 |
Changing a subject's
facial expression, gestures, clothing, body parts or personal accessories. |
| |
3.0.4 |
Retouching that
enhances or reduces the apparent quality or desirability of an item, or
the aesthetics of a place. |
| |
3.0.5 |
Using "motion"
to create a misleading impression that the subject is moving at a different
speed than he/she/it was moving during the events. |
| |
3.0.6 |
Using effects or
color changes in such a manner that it is unclear whether the effects or
color changes were applied through digital editing or were part of the original
event that was being covered. |
| |
3.0.7 |
Using any other
digital editing procedure in a way that creates a misleading impression
of the events, participants or context. |
| |
3.0.8 |
In nature photographs,
special care should be taken to represent animal and plant life in its actual
environment, habitat and context (e.g. do not lighten a background to make
it appear that a nocturnal animal is diurnal or place an animal in fabricated
geographical settings). |
| |
3.0.9 |
It is impermissible
to manipulate a nature photo so as to create a false appearance that animals
were associating with other animals (including humans), to group animals
together in a manner that did not naturally occur or to increase the number
of animals in a group. |
| |
3.0.10 |
The enhancement
of nature images for the purpose of investigation or viewability is permissible,
provided the manipulation is incidental, obvious or specifically disclosed
to the viewer. |
| |
3.0.11 |
It is impermissible
to represent a fabricated phenomenon as natural (e.g. adding a shooting
star or rainbow). |
| |
3.0.12 |
These procedures
are impermissible whether accomplished through digital editing or physical
editing ("mortising") of images. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 4.0 |
Promotional Images
For News Publications (Permissible Procedures) |
| |
The following digital
image editing procedures are permitted to achieve promotional objectives
(e.g. on publication covers and introductory areas of an article) in a manner
that is not misleading as to the events, participants or context: |
| |
4.0.1 |
Modifications of
image composition are disfavored and should be disclosed. The cropping of
an image to exclude damage constitutes a modification. |
| |
4.0.2 |
Cropping, rotation
or image enhancement beyond the repair of after-acquired damage or deterioration
(including contrast change) are substantive modifications of an image that
should be applied to archival images only when necessary to achieve a proper
archival purpose (e.g. analysis of a particular architectural feature) and
in a manner that is consistent with the principles herein. |
| |
4.0.3 |
Cropping of the
secondary support, frame or vignettes in the original should be avoided
when possible. Secondary supports, frames and vignettes should be considered
an integral part of a photographic artifact and may carry valuable historical
information, such as watermarks, signatures, stamps and studio names. A
digital image of a secondary support, frame or vignette may be restored
in a manner that is consistent with the photo restoration. |
| |
4.0.4 |
Reference To Journalism
Ethics: It is impermissible to modify a historical image in a manner that
would violate ethics pertaining to manipulation of journalistic images.
Reference is made to the "DigitalCustom Model Rules To Preserve The
Integrity of Images For Journalistic Purposes" (Release Version #2.0,
March 1, 2003)(available at www.digitalcustom.com). |
| |
4.0.5 |
Skin and hair beautification.
|
| |
4.0.6 |
Title (or other
text) overlays. |
| |
4.0.7 |
The use of other
digital editing procedures in a way that is not misleading as to the events,
participants or context. |
| |
|
|
| 5.0 |
Promotional Images
For News Publications (Impermissible Procedures) |
| |
Same as 3.0. |
| |
|
|
| 6.0 |
Preservation
of Source Materials and Ancillary Principles |
| |
The original unedited
file captured by the photographer (or scanned), and all files integrated
into a composite picture, should be preserved as evidence of the extent
of editing. |
| |
6.0.1 |
The publication
should designate one or more editors to decide ethical issues related to
digital image editing procedures. |
| |
6.0.2 |
Artists and technicians
who perform digital image editing services that are subject to ethical guidelines
should be provided with the guidelines, and be instructed promptly to disclose
to the publication any known variance from the guidelines. |
| |
6.0.3 |
Absent information
to the contrary, a digital editor may assume that editing instructions received
from a designated contact person at a publication are consistent with the
publication's policies. |
| |
6.0.4 |
These guidelines
do not address the issue of who has discretion over journalistic image editing
for a particular publication (e.g. the photographer, publisher, editor,
reporter). The publication should make clear its policies in this regard.
|
| |
6.0.5 |
These guidelines
are addressed only to journalistic images and are not intended to limit
the procedures that might be applied to commercial images, artistic images
or images for personal purposes.
|
