Photo Essay Ethics question.

This one has been bugging me for a while now. Im an aspiring

photojournalist, while shooting my first ever photo essays for my

school newspaper, I have always taken into account the fact that the

photog should under no circumstances, influence what he is taking

pictures of. The pictures came out good, but there where times when

the subject did something for a split second and I just know it

would have looked better had I been on the other side, or from a

different angle. My question is this; lets say that split second

moment is the subject walking through a doorway, and the lighting is

perfect, but you dont capture it...so you ask the subject to walk

through it again. Is this ethical? Do photojournalist sometimes

interact with their subjects in order to capture something they

might have otherwise missed?

It's not ethically <i>perfect</i> if you're passing your photos off as completely candid and unposed. But your subject did walk through that door as part of their daily job or whatever, and in that light, so if you reshot you wouldn't be representing them doing something that never happened. It's not as though you're getting a glamour model to pose as a nurse because the real nurses aren't photogenic and you've decided the ward is ugly as well so you're going to move a few beds and traction appliances into a hip warehouse conversion, while passing the pictures off as the reality of your local hospital.

<P>In short, you can set your own parameters. Lying is lying and cheating is cheating, but the viewer's preconceptions are another thing...:-).<P>

Candid photography, documentary photography, is not <I>random</i> photography - you want photos that convey what you subjectively <I>see</i> as well as what's objectively in front of you - and with a bit of creative licence it can start to shade into a posed shoot. Where you draw the boundary line is up to you.<P>Since people argue about manipulating photos to show Politician X sucking up to Terrorist Y, I'd say you don't really have anything to worry about.

About preconceptions etc. No one thinks a newspaper photo taken with flash, posed or not, is a 'falsified' account, but it's clear that the flash is not naturally part of the scene. Same for b/w, grain, saturated colour and so on. Personally, I don't 'do' flash because I don't like it, I don't know how to take control of it, and flash isn't how things look. Then again, things don't look like underexposed and overdeveloped black and white, but it doesn't seem to bother me ;-)

 

The bigger problem with asking people to step through doors again is that they might lose sympathy with what you're trying to achieve, depending....

 

Again, no one worries about a photograph of Chirac and Bush shaking hands, though it's clear that without the manipulation of a press conference the two men would be giving each other a wide berth.

 

I'd say that a photo of Blair manipulated to show him making a human sacrifice and passing it off as a true depiction would be fundamentally dishonest and unethical. But I'd be open to contrary arguments, and such a photo might have its place in a satirical magazine. So there is an extent to which viewers' expectations have to be figured in.

 

I'm not aware of any photojournalist rule about not influencing things (I think if there is a rule it's about not falsifying things, e.g. pictures of massacres that never took place). But I'm not a PJ, I'm just taking the moral high ground ;-)

Short answer: yes, it's okay. :-)

The guys who do video journalism regularly ask people to redo things since

they have to tell a story with an obvious time sequence and they often just

can't be in the right place at the right time to get everything. Once while I was

on assignment in Kamchatka, a videographer from Reuters asked the

helicopter we were traveling in to take off and land again so he could shoot

the landing from the ground -- which the pilot proceeded to do. He then had

me redo my exit from the helicopter because the first time around I got out

before he did.

 

In terms of still photography, personally, I'm not comfortable "re-enacting"

anything. I figure if I missed it I missed it. I can't help feeling that the re-

enactment would also somehow me deader than the REAL THING. Life is

just too finely organized for all but the Robert DeNiro's of the world to be able

to fake it.

If you miss it. That moment is forever gone. It's unethical to ask them to do it again. Spend more time with them and be prepared next time.

<i>It's unethical to ask them to do it again.</i><p>

 

Why? What makes it unethical? Ethics comes from some foundation, which doesn't seem to be the case here unless someone claims it is something that it isn't.

Jeff, I guess I'd stay that one of the foundations of photojournalistic ethics is

the presupposition on the part of viewers that what they are looking at is

"real." And in this respect a re-enactment isn't real any more than that now

infamous photo taken by a photojournalist for the LA Times in Iraq that

combined the best aspects of two photos. It wasn't that the combined photo

was somehow untrue in terms of content but it no longer represented a single

moment in time -- which is one of the core properties of still photography.

The ethics you refer to is specific to the expectation of photo as "journalistic truth." It is not inherent in the photo, but in the way in which the photo is presented to the world. The comment above mine didn't reference any specific presentation, which is a very different case.

 

Also, many photographs, including journalistic ones, don't represent a "single moment in time." The simplest example is the dragged shutter with flash, in which several obvious moments of time exist. This technique is found in plenty of pj/documentary work.

 

The original question asks about photographer's impact on the scene. If the photographer is working close, it's unlikely that the effect of the photographer being there and shooting can be removed from the scene. People react to what's around them.

Joe Rosenthal's photo of the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima was a reenactment. W Eugene Smith asked people to "do that again" until he got the picture he wanted and Smith must is considered one of the finest photojournalists. I don't think there is a rule prohibiting reenactments.

You're probably OK with asking the subject to re-do something to get a better angle on the shot.

 

This is a complex and changing area, however, and you should be well-informed. In "Photojournalism, The Professionals Approach" by Kenneth Kobre, there is an entire chapter, with examples, devoted to the topic. What was ok 10 years ago may not be ok today.

"...so you ask the subject to walk through it again. Is this ethical?"

 

yes of course. there is nothing wrong with getting a better recording. if you didn't come back with a few variables, many editors would not phone you back for the next job.

 

"Do photojournalist sometimes interact with their subjects in order to capture something they might have otherwise missed?"

 

again yes, the same answer as above. we do it all the time, we have to.

Jeff it seems you may work under a different foundation of ethical standards than I.

 

Sure during the age of Rolleiflexes and the FSA work malipulation was almost a given. But as others have pointed out this is a new era where the press is looked at under an even closer scope. How many times do you hear people say you can't believe what you read in newspapers?

 

Remember it's their story not yours. You don't take photos you're given photos. Trust goes along way with both your subjects and your readers.

 

I attended the Missouri Photo Workshop this fall, which included a faculty made of a pulitzer winners, National Geographic photographers and editors and so on. The workshop is strongly rooted in documentary photography. No flash, etc. They preached strongly on only taking what you were given. If you miss it prepare yourself next time. Using shady ethics in today's age is a sure fire way to have a very short career. Do as you like, but I know it's a line I won't cross.

Kent:"Joe Rosenthal's photo of the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima was a reenactment."

 

Are you sure about this? Isn't Rosenthal on the record as saying that the moment is

genuine and that there was a misunderstanding that led to the impression it had been

staged?

 

"W Eugene Smith asked people to "do that again" until he got the picture he wanted and

Smith must is considered one of the finest photojournalists"

 

Despite his huge talents Smith engaged in a lot of dubious practises that it would be

difficult to defend in the context of reportage. He might be an inspirational figure in many

ways, but he's a really

flawed role model when it comes to journalistic ethics. Certainly his actions would get him

fired today from, say, the NY Times.

 

"I don't think there is a rule prohibiting reenactments."

 

There are an awful lot of people who'd firmly disagree with you on this when it comes to

journalistic work - and the initial poster clarified that he aspired to be a "photojournalist".

I've no problem with set-ups in photography, but I have a real problem with staging when

it's misrepresented as fact. The fact that the staging may be of a minor thing that the

subject engages in anyway is irrelevant - once you cross that line then there's a question

mark

over everything you do. I know of reportage photographers working today who've been

utterly shunned by their collegues for doing the kind of things that were routine for Smith.

This is a really interesting subject but I won't be able to respond further for a couple of

days, I'll chip back in if the thread's still active when I get back to an internet connection.

 

ps sorry to single you out Kent, I could have made the same points in response to what

others have said......

<i>You don't take photos you're given photos. </i><p>

 

This is true for a security camera, but I don't know any photographers, particularly in pj, who operate this way.<p>

 

<i>Jeff it seems you may work under a different foundation of ethical standards than I.</i><p>

 

What is this foundation that I operate under? I didn't say anything about it.

Jeff, you don't know any photographers who work that way?

 

Access is everything in photoj and documentary work. Without access you have nothing. Your subjects agree to let you into their lives. They give you a chance to share their story and give them a voice. Hence you're given the opportunity.

 

"It's unethical to ask them to do it again.

Why? What makes it unethical?"

 

It seems based on your question that it's not unethical to ask them to do it again? Am I correct in assuming that in the way you posed your question?

Being given the access doesn't mean that you are "given the photos."

 

What I'm saying about ethics is that there has to be a foundation. Nobody here has established one. Ethics is much more complicated than "I think this is ethical and this isn't."

Boris - I am willing to be corrected so go ahead and pick on me. :-) My understanding is that Mount Suribachi was taken previously and upon victory the troops there at the time raised the American flag. It was a little flag because that's all they had on the battlefield but it was the signal of victory. This is out of Loengard's Celebrating the Negative: ". . .Joe Rosenthal of the AP heard a rumor about <i>'some guys going up the volcano'</i> to replace the American flag flying there with a bigger one." And hence the super-icon that inhabits our minds as the taking of Mount Suribachi and victory at Iwo Jima.<BR>

I stand corrected regarding Gene Smith. I didn't know the editors would object. I knew Smith's stuff was published and assumed it was editorially acceptable at the time. He is a new study for me and you know what they say about "a little knowledge." After what you wrote I read up and found out that the Life Editors did not know Smith pasted in the foreground of the Schweitzer or they would have objected even then. I don't know if they would have objected to replays at Smith's direction or if they were happy to be uniformed. He is the most interesting photographer because he is so thoughtful about integrity and moral righteousness. He seems called to get the truth at any risk, and does. What is it he says: "Let Truth Be the Prejudice" so not only in he interested in "truth" but/and he sometimes used dubious means to get there. It doesn't seem to be prevalent and most (99.9 percent) of his stuff is real and truthful at all levels. I wonder if maybe editors and photographers have different points of view.

Here's the story from Joe Rosenthal's own mouth to an AP reporter. Pretty good story too. He lives out by Golden Gate Park. Probably hates drop ins.

oops <A HREF=" http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pulitzer/rosenthal.html">here it is</A>--

Rosenthal took advantage of, but didn't instigate, what was essentially a re-

enactment. I've seen him say that, if the photo had been posed, he would not

have arranged the composition quite so perfectly. <p>

A leading TV journalist/producer in the UK resigned in some disgrace when it

was found he'd asked the British Navy to re-enact a missile launch in the Irag

war. He committed suicide shortly afterwards. <p>

That said, I believe the notion that the observer doesn't affect the observed is

a false one - the only question is to what extent it happens.

<i>"My question is this; lets say that split second moment is the subject walking through a doorway, and the lighting is perfect, but you dont capture it...so you ask the subject to walk through it again. Is this ethical? Do photojournalist sometimes interact with their subjects in order to capture something they might have otherwise missed?"</i>

<p>Yes, it is definitely unethical. Having said that, I'm sure there are many "photojournalists" who have no problems pulling this and other stunts to get their pictures. This isn't to say there is something wrong with a photojournalist interacting with the subject - this is the MO of world renowned pj David Alan Harvey. However, he does it to gain access to his subjects' lives in order to capture otherwise private moments. He doesn't do it to stage photos he missed.

 

<p><i>"I believe the notion that the observer doesn't affect the observed is a false one - the only question is to what extent it happens."</i>

<p>Precisely. There is even a name for this - the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

First, I think I have to agree with Jeff about the distinciton between being "give

the opportunity/access" to shoot and being "given photos." A key part of a

successful PJ's life is gaining access. Getting the photos once you've gained

access is what you're paid for.

 

I think in an age where (really good) photo manipulation has become so easy

thanks ot Photoshop, photojournalists are being held to a higher ethical

standard than ever. As someone just starting out Martin should work to

establish an absolutely squeeky clean reputation in this respect. In think

Boris is right that what worked for Eugene Smith would today probably get

him fired his first day on the job.

 

And coming back to the idea of a photo "capturing a moment" -- well I knew

when I typed my prior comment that the issue of long and even multiple

exposures would come up. Jeff mentioned the use of the "flash and burn"

technique but somehow that is to me still "one moment" , albeit an "expanded"

one, and a hugely different thing than for example a double exposure (or a

slide sandwich) which I take it would never make the grade in

photojournalism.

 

Years ago I attended a photographic seminar at Anderson Ranch taught be

NG's Annie Griffiths Belt and I made the mistake of including in a mini-portfolio

a slide sandwich of some mosques in Turkey and a deep red sky. She was

positively offended by this!

If in doubt about your ethics, why not ask the subject if they mind doing x, y or z. If they say yes, you're set. If no, well ... then you're not.

Linke, I don't see how this has anything whatsoever to do with whether the

subject feels it's kosher or not. As Jeff says this is an issue of how a photo is

presented to the end user (or editors along the way). If the claim is to be

made that the photo represents something that actually happened -- then it

darn well had better have happened -- exactly as depicted in the photo.

 

In Martin's initial post he mentions wanted to redo a shot to get a better angle.

I'd say that's a definite no-no. Learning to know where to be standing when

the action happens is as vital a photographic skill as working the camera.

Maybe the saying "f8 and be there" should be amended to "f8 and be just in

the right place"