Sept. 4, 2010
Golf tournaments tend to be fairly easy events to cover. Follow the players, chart the score and get some interesting quotes afterwards. Unless something major happens; such as a penalty to a leading player, a play off, or someone collapsing on the back nine most golf stories for paper or web tend to be pretty simple and “scandal” free.
Rarely do the people on the sidelines make the news. You might see a spectator get nailed with a flying golf ball or some animal hold up play while it is removed from the course. It’s even rarer that a photographer would make headlines for his actions, before or after the event. But such was the case of Marc Feldman when his altered image of Matt Bettencourt made its way on to the Getty Images website.
As is protocol among wire services when a mistake or error makes its way into the system a kill order is issued, where media outlets are notified to not run any photo or story from a certain event because the service or agency cannot guarantee that the information or image is complete true. In the case of Feldman his photos were removed, and he was very shortly released from his contract with Getty. This instance has a slight variation from other instances when digital altered images have made their way onto wire services, in that Feldman sent both the altered and unaltered photography to Getty.
Feldman responded to the incident in a recent article on PGA.com. In he said, “”There was absolutely no intent to pass this off as a real image. Only a moron would have sent both,” he said. “And I would’ve done it a lot better too.”
The lines are pretty clear cut here. If you digital change an image and present something that didn’t happen, you will lose your job. This, unfortunately only seems to hold true for newspapers and not for other print media. It is common knowledge that Sports Illustrated digitally alters its covers. Notice here, where #4 Mark Barron has two sets of hands, an obvious, and unfortunate Photoshop mistake.
For Feldman I feel really sorry. If his statements in the PGA article are true then all he was doing was trying to show the caddy what new Photoshop software could do. For him it was a simple mistake sending it off. Unfortunately Getty has its name on the line and if word gets out it is sending out false images that could hurt the papers that pay for their images it could end up hurting Getty’s bottom line. To me this isn’t so much an ethical issue, in so much for Getty it’s a money issue. If its customers can’t trust them, then they will go elsewhere for their photo needs.
– By Alex Gilbert