Does a Documentry Photograph have to be honest?

<p>Or, about portraying a truth?</p>

<p>I refer you to this link <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/sep/27/photography.pressandpublishing">http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/sep/27/photography.pressandpublishing</a></p>

<p>Is the honesty of a Documentary Photograph really that important or is it about the Photograph revealing a truth.</p>

<p> Empirical truth or factual?</p>

<p>Yes a documentary photograph should be honest. If a photographer fakes a photo, he is only revealing 'truth" as he determines what the truth is. That's his opinion. It's up to the viewer to draw their understanding of what happened based on facts. The photographer should report facts. Opinions are for the editorial page. </p>

<p>Alan is right. Otherwise, how can we trust the news media? (Or, is it too late for that?)</p>

<p>Allen: You provided two alternatives for a documentary photograph - honesty or truth. Are these alternatives mutually exclusive? Are they the only alternatives? </p>

<p>I don't see any controversy here. The nature of a documentary photograph is to provide documentation. If there were at least an element of dishonesty, the photograph would fail.</p>

<p>One last nit to pick: What's the difference between empirical truth and factual truth?</p>

 

<p><em>Empirical</em> shouldn't apply to a <em>documentary</em> discussion as it is "truth" purely based on theoretical or experimental derivation. If we mean <em>documentary</em> as a form of presenting a true event, then how a fake photograph can possibly do that? By definition it isn't documenting anything, it's in fact skewing the truth to whatever extent its author had chosen. </p>

"Documentary" photography is separate from "photojournalism" and "news" photography as the former is usually an in-

depth exploration of a subject where and opinion is formed and the case made for that opinion is expressed using both

pictures and words. while the latter two ephotographic endeavors are usually more associated with momentary and

revealing glimpsesof a subject subjects that are of more immediate interest.

 

If you depicted the two in a Venn diagram there would be multiple overlapping areas in which they have the same

concerns ,one of which is that if they are depicting real world events they should not be staged or the photograph

manipulated during processing and post-processing to make you perceive that something happened that didn't actually

happen.

 

Photographs shot during a documentary project can have news value and vice-versa.

 

Anything described as "news" should adhere to the facts of the subject or event as seen by the photographer or writer,

but that is of course primarily connected to where the photographer or writer was standing. If you stand on a hill over

looking a battlefield you will perceive a much different "truth" than you will if you are one side or the other of the skirmish

line (if as is almost never the case these days the battle lines are clearly drawn.

 

One thing to keep in mind is the natural tension between what one of the two real jobs of a news organization is : to

persuade the reader /viewer of the validity of a point of view.

 

If you are interested in the questions of ethics for journalists I suggest you look at

http://www.journalismethics.info/journalist_resources/journalism_ethics_sites.htm and http://www.poynter.org/tag/ethics/

 

Keep in mind that the question of what is truth is often determined by the existing politics and beliefs of the reader /

viewer. If you are a atheist , you will never be persuaded of the "truths" of religious belief while if you are very religious

you will interpret the words of what ever version of the religious text you take to be the absolute word of god.

 

Also do not confuse empirically provable truth with political and theist "truth". The same word but the contexts make all

the difference.

<blockquote>

<p><em>Empirical</em> shouldn't apply to a <em>documentary</em> discussion as it is "truth" purely based on theoretical or experimental derivation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From the Oxford Dictionary...<br>

"empirical:Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic"</p>

<p>To turn things around a bit: A photograph cannot be honest or dishonest, fake or its like. It has no purpose, meaning or a story to tell. It don't know it is a photograph, what scene it "witnessed" and what the truth about the scene was. It can only exist as a photograph, and it don't even know that it exists.</p>

<p>It is the photographer, and whoever else presents the photograph as documentation that can be honest or dishonest about what exactly the photograph shows (and also about what it not shows). And if it is revealed that the photographer has been dishonest about one part of the story he tells us through his photos, how are we to know whether he is honest about other parts of his story? It's all about the confidence in the photographer and his story, and that the photographer uses his photographs to create confidence in the story he tells. In that respect his entire career as a documentary photographer will be important. One single lie can easily destroy your whole career because all your stories are suddenly put on trial.<br /> <br />Another aspect is that also we who look at photographs must be honest about what we see and not see. We cannot just pick out stories from it and look on them as if they were the truth. And in turn, if we find that the picked out stories were not true, use them for discrediting the photographer (unless we discovered that he also told that untrue story as if it were the truth).</p>

<p>Cheers,<br />Frode Langset<br />(and hope my English was good enough for expressing my meaning, it is not my native language)</p>

Fronde has it precisely.

<p>Eh. Eh. There is something called "emotional truth" too. Plus not all pictures are taken by photographer, say one minded person but all kinds of CCV systems, satelites, drones and whatever. The infra-red photo can show the truth noone even knew was there. The simple angle here is this: in the field of scientific photography T is basically unavoidable, in forensics T is strictly regulated by law, in media and journalism T-thing is pretty gray zone full of all sorts of pulp and in pictoreal artistic one there is no prise for guessing. Because in highly formalized communication such as say PC programing language truth is operationally necessary while in unformalized one the truth is anything one want.</p>

<p>If your intent is to "document" then the documentation should be honest and literal. If the intent is editorial than the rules change.</p>

<p>-o</p>

<p>Every photograph can be either a lie or a truth. They're like plants when you're gardening: a weed is a plant (any plant) that's growing in the wrong place. A photograph is a truth or a lie according to its label or its purported assignment.</p>

<p>Capa's photograph did not lie; Capa (may have) lied.</p>

<p>[Classic documentary claimed to be descriptive, not expressive; evidentiary not judicial. It made no claim to <em>either</em> truth or falseness.]</p>

<p>Tell that to a judge. We'll come visit :)</p>

<p>Do you know Don McCullin's 'Fallen North Vietnamese Soldier' photograph? McCullin is known for his integrity as a photographer but he moved some of the objects before shooting the picture, and he admitted this quite freely. Nevertheless, the intention of the picture is true and honest.</p>

<p>Yeh, but Don was steady. He never owned pictures - say in perfect position to admit anything. Not to mention wearing glowes at all times.</p>

<p>Chris Waller wrote: " the intention of the picture is true and honest." The scene, before he moved any objects would then be ... dishonest? Untrue?</p>

<p>McCullin made a picture of stuff that had been rearranged. That is its truth. Rearranged to "look like" or confirm <em>what he already knew</em>, what he expected, not what (if anything) the present untouched scene would have told him/us.</p>

<p>Empirical truth or factual?</p>

<p>Well, empirical truth is based on factual information. Observation. I'm using the word loosely, honest, "factual" in this context as a real time Photograph.</p>

<p>So, is a real time Photograph any more relevant than a Photograph based on empirical truths?</p>

<p>There are many of examples of Documentary Photographs being set up using empirical truths which can be argued as stronger truths.</p>

<p>More honest based than a random Photograph...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A perceived truth.</p>

<p>As many of you said in different ways, a photograph is just that. The 'truth' is up to the observer. So, on the face of it, there is nothing wrong with a falsified photograph which serves a purpose, or establishes an empirical fact. The problem is not that the photograph negates anything. The problem is the same as any other lie or falsification done for a purpose, and that is simply- if found out, it takes away the authority of the original statement.<br>

So, here is a risk-return point of view. If you need to use a false photograph to establish a point, your return is immediate- great job done. If discovered, it comes crumbling down. That would be the risk. If the downside is such that the story stands to lose all credibility, then it is never justified- except for the author's own benefit, with the thought that he would be long gone when they find out.<br>

Not very different in spirit from the George Washington and cherry tree story.</p>

 

<p>In film days a documentary photo would have been a straight photo out of camera, without altering of content. Period.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In film days a documentary photo would have been a straight photo out of camera, without altering of content.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I have many books of documentary photography dating back 100 years and most have substantial darkroom work. There is no rulebook for "straight out of the camera" with documentary photography.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As many of you said in different ways, a photograph is just that. The 'truth' is up to the observer. So, on the face of it, there is nothing wrong with a falsified photograph which serves a purpose, or establishes an empirical fact. The problem is not that the photograph negates anything. The problem is the same as any other lie or falsification done for a purpose, and that is simply- if found out, it takes away the authority of the original statement.<br /> So, here is a risk-return point of view. If you need to use a false photograph to establish a point, your return is immediate- great job done. If discovered, it comes crumbling down. That would be the risk. If the downside is such that the story stands to lose all credibility, then it is never justified- except for the author's own benefit, with the thought that he would be long gone when they find out.<br /> Not very different in spirit from the George Washington and cherry tree story.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So it's Ok to lie as long as you win something and don't get caught. Is that what we should be teaching our children?</p>

<p>No. But sometimes you do lie or exaggerate (which is a form of lying). Like when you tell your kid she did great even though it wasn't really. Some photos and stories also exaggerate and twist. I am not one to question the photographer's ethic because he/she made a decision- sometimes under duress - and sometimes honestly thinking it is for the 'greater good'. My guideline to someone making a judgement call like that - because nothing is black and white- would be that even if you think you are twisting facts for a cause, it might do the cause eventual harm. Should we NEVER tell a lie or twist facts? Sometimes we all do. Of course we don't say that to our children, but they figure it out.</p>

<p>Every photo is in some sense the twisting of facts or falsification of reality. If it wasn't, it would be the original reality itself, which it is not. We're not here teaching our children. We're discussing photos. A photo transforms the original scene or subject in very significant ways. There's no automatic morality in that. Documentary photography has a rich history of having strong, one-sided perspectives. Documentary photography is different from journalism. It is not immoral to adopt a strong perspective or to use documentary photography to advocate.</p>

<p>The setting up of photos can be done to get at truth. Just as Shakespeare's plays, which were not the same as spontaneous street performance, told truths and Magritte's and Dali's surrealism tells truths. There's a difference between truth and straight facts, between human significance and mere accuracy.</p>

<p>I'm speechless!</p>