Sunday, March 19, 2006

NY Times: Photoshopped? No, never! We just goofed and used the wrong film!
Corrections

Published: March 15, 2006

Editors' Note

The cover photograph in The Times Magazine on Sunday rendered colors incorrectly for the jacket, shirt and tie worn by Mark Warner, the former Virginia governor who is a possible candidate for the presidency. The jacket was charcoal, not maroon; the shirt was light blue, not pink; the tie was dark blue with stripes, not maroon.

The Times's policy rules out alteration of photographs that depict actual news scenes and, even in a contrived illustration, requires acknowledgment in a credit. In this case, the film that was used can cause colors to shift, and the processing altered them further; the change escaped notice because of a misunderstanding by the editors.

Unlike these so-called experts, I’ve been a professional photographer for over 100 years and I doubt there was any animus involved. If one carefully examines the photo (shown below), it obvious there was an emulsion problem on the plate. Most likely, the affernackel detached itself from the stanisfran just before the presses rolled; that’s very hard to detect.


1 Comments:

Blogger The Almighty Mattski said...

And yet the flesh tones came out just fine. That's really the only question one needs to ask when it comes to claims like Bad film: Are the flesh tones correct?

If not, then it was a glitch, either with the film or at the press (like loading magenta ink into the cyan plate, too much water in the wells, etc). BUT if the flesh tones are rendering correctly, the color modification was intentional.

BUS-TED!

Mattski

3/20/2006 9:03 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home