HuffPo Flopped Photo

[GeoK]

Now why would the Huffington Post go and flop the main photo at the top of their front page today?
All this does, in my opinion, is eat away credibility and questions their ethics.

Look at the top left photo of Obama and Michelle here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ The sign on the right reads, "(heart symbol) I AMABO."

Is it a mistake or was it intentional? As a visual journalist myself, I find it very unlikely using today's technology, to do this accidentally. Doing this to make their front page more visually dynamic is a mistake. If I were caught doing this at my newspaper, I would be severely reprimanded and would be forced to submit a correction.

I sent them a email asking for an explanation.

[frogcycle]

1. glad to have the photo error police at work

why tell us?

[GeoK]

7. Manipulation for a specific purpose

I find it very important to present the truth, no matter how trivial it may seem.

Here is a good link http://www.60-seconds.com/168_ethics.html that will give you some idea what I am referring to.

--snip--

All journalists who use the printed or displayed image to help reinforce a story need to follow a hard line on ethics and honesty. It's bad enough that some events even take place. But to turn and put political spin on the images makes them that much worse.

[graywarrior]

2. I'm shocked!

:P

[jakem]

3. it looks like they needed a good left side photo- more balanced flipped...

but good to see you are on the job!

[hlthe2b]

11. Exactly.... They were viewing the esthetics, not paying attention

to accuracy. Big Woop. Huffpo has an inexperienced web staffer....:eyes:

[Cooley Hurd]

4. What's unethical about a simple mistake?

:shrug:

[GeoK]

10. It needs a correction

Here's a good link from Washington State University on the ethics of photography...
http://wiki.wsu.edu/wsuwiki/Photo_manipulation_ethics
--snip--

Generally Allowed:
Brightness/contrast control
Burning & dodging to control tonal range
Color correction
Cropping a frame to fit the layout
Retouching of dust & scratches

Never Allowed:
Adding, moving, or removing objects within the frame
Color change other than to restore what the subject looked like
Cropping a frame in order to alter its meaning
Flopping a photograph (left/right reversal)
Printing a photograph in other than "true" orientation

[parasim]

5. They often have 3 photos, with the left and right ones flopped...

to create a symmetrical arrangement of photos. I never really understood why they do this, but I have seen it many times.

Perhaps, in this case they had it that way at first and then swapped out the one on the right side not realizing that they left the backwards one up there. or maybe they did it on purpose, who knows?

Mistake or intentional aside, I often am curious of HuffPo's choice of photos to go with stories. Sometimes it looks like they just googled the keywords in a headline and grabbed the first on they find. Maybe they have some program to do that for them...

[Zensea]

6. And for what purpose?

Intentional?
What purpose could it possibly serve?
In order for there to be some maliciousness there has to be a reason that actually makes sense.
Got one?
I doubt it.
It's a simple mistake.
They just need a better visual proofreader.

Besides which, I get the impression that Huffington Post likes Obama so why would they pull a dirty trick on him?

[GeoK]

8. I really don't think it's a mistake

I have worked with online editors and photographers and there is really no way to flop a photo unless it was intentional. Perhaps the exception would be if they are still using film. Most photographers are digital.

[Zensea]

9. You mean to say "feel"?

You really don't "feel" it's a mistake.
Unless you can come up with a rational reason for maliciousness, it's in the realm of emotion and instinct not thought.
Got one? (same question as before)
I'm actually curious.
I can't think of anything it really accomplishes which is why I think it's probably not intentional (unless it was for layout purposes).

[GeoK]

12. Manipulation for a specific purpose

Edited to give photo source.

Again, the reason it's done is to PRESENT you visually with more dynamic page or photo banner in this case. If you look at the motion visually with Michelle's hand from the upper left it begins the eye moving towards the center thorough Barack's left hand (really his right hand) to the next photo. This is manipulation and is wrong.

Besides that it's an Associated Press Photo.

[Zensea]

14. Wow that sounds frightening

You're making a tempest in a teapot.

Making you look at the next photo?
The horror, the horror.

[frogcycle]

15. oh my god, the sky is falling

We all get it that you are the world's greatest expert on the topic.

There are a LOT more obvious manipulations going on than that. reversing photos happens all the time. it was stupid to do it with text included. someone should be reprimanded for sloppiness. That is all.

[parasim]

13. Well, as I pointed out in my response above...

They do intentionally flop photos to create a symmetry with the same photo on either side of a center photo. I have seen it many times.

I'm just not convinced it is done maliciously.

I can certainly imagine the photo editor mistakenly swapping out the non-flopped photo with another photo.

[GeoK]

16. It was done intentionally

This is the Associated Press photo

I retrieved this image directly from the Associated Press.


Here is the caption.

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., left, and his wife, Michelle, right, wave as they take the stage during a South Carolina primary victory party in Columbia, S.C. Saturday, Jan. 26, 2008. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)

And for those of you who make fun of my position on this subject, no matter how minute the infraction, it still isn't right. It is what's wrong with journalism today. Values erode slowly, just like our government. If people like me don't take a stand and keep watch, then it propagates. Ultimately it doesn't become a question of right or wrong, it just becomes the norm.


Edited to include caption.

[FARAFIELD]

17. ummmm

WHO GIVES A SHIT? besides Mr. 43 posts. I like the picture, visually it was the right call as a good left to right photo probably couldnt be found in time. I do slide shows all the time and flip photos (although I would never show one with words visible), but that just makes it charming to me, kind of a low tech visual in an hi tech age.

[GeoK]

18. Just because I have 43 post

doesn't mean my point is not valid. Your post doesn't dignify a response. Grow up.

[Oeditpus Rex]

19. Flopping art is always a bad idea

because a flopped image misrepresents reality. Human faces aren't symmetrical, most people list slightly to one side, etc. In this case, the flopped pic has the Obamas waving with the wrong hands. That's hardly a major distortion, but it's still a distortion.

I've been a reporter, photographer, editor and photo editor, and the rule has always been, "If you have to flop a pic so it'll work with your layout, you need a different pic."

That said, intent must always be considered when doling out punishment. Did the HuffPo staffer flop the pic to make readers think something else was going on? I doubt it.

This calls for a finger wag, not an indictment.