Ethics of divulging digital manipulation-Who should tell?

Just got my Sept. 98 Rangefinder magazine with a nice image of a Great Blue Heron on the cover. Only trouble is, the image is obviously a fake. In reading the info inside it reveals the image was created in Photoshop. Then there is an article on Photoshop creation in the issue to go with this image. But, non one word on the ethical questions as to whether to fake images, use digital to create what one cannot capture on film or whether or not to label or tell.

With a nice Heron like this I would expect most who see it won't know or care it was faked, they will assume it is a "real" photo of a Great Blue Heron. The guy found it, photographed it and was lucky enough to sell it. But, looking with some knowledge of Photography tells you it is a fake. Now those who believe it is real will have one more reason to distrust images they see.

Should the Digital aspect be placed right with the image(on the cover) rather than in a box 5 pages into the magazine?

Personally i don't really mind either way, the point I like is that they told you while you were reading the article. If it mattered to you enough you would read the article, if not you just enjoyed someone elses work, which is just fine with me.

 

<p>

 

My 2 cents.

 

<p>

 

al

I feel that any image CREATED digitally should be "tagged" as such on the "photo". We need some type of national or international standard for such "creations". However, I think it is unlikely we will ever see this happen. Besides, as the technology gets even better it will become more and more difficult to tell what is and is not fake and therefore, difficult to enforce.

 

<p>

 

Those images that are digitally MANIPULATED to make up for the inadequacies of film in recording what was truly there shouldn't fall into this category, IMO. We use filters in the field and dodge and burn in the darkroom and this is where digital can make a useful contribution to photography.

No publication is going to start placing labels on their covers, or their interior pictures for that matter, nor should they, for the simple reason that it would look like crap. Some publications will develop blanket policies that protect their editorial integrity, as I believe National Geographic did after the pyramid fiasco. Others -- photography magazines, maybe -- may reveal the technical data for images individually, when they care to. Most, though, will make extensive use of digital manipulation without saying anything. There aren't going to be any national, international or intergalactic standards on any of this, and anyone who thinks there is is living in some sort of fantasy world.

What's "rangefinder" magazine? Sorry, but that's one I haven't heard

of. It couldn't have been done too well if you spotted it as a fake

so fast!

 

<p>

 

What we need is the "FoundView" symbol, with a circle around it and

a diagonal line across! Maybe we could get some stickers made up and

sneak into the bookstores lookign for offending magazines!

 

<p>

 

I'm getting to the point where I don't trust any magazine "photograph" any more.

This subject keeps coming back to nag us here in this forum. I feel it is up to the "shooter" or publisher to indicate that the image is manipulated digitally. Bobs suggestion of putting stickers of the non-foundview style might be switched around. The publisher should put a "digi-print" sticker on those images that are digitally altered. I hate to think that we (foundview believers) have to become Photoshop photocops.

 

<p>

 

Perhaps those of us like Dan and Bob have to voice our dissatisfaction to the publisher. I am going to do this with OP in reference to the recent thread I started on this very subject. It probably wont make much difference, but you gotta try.

There is a basic dishonesty inherent in all of this. The real problem here is that digital imagers want to be regarded as photographers, because photography has a 150 year history of immediacy, truth, reality, and dependability. Everyone keeps saying that photographers manipulate images (in the darkroom, in camera, with filters, exposure, etc.) but a basic truth here is that photographs are made with cameras, recorded on light sensitive material at the moment that they occur, the manipulations mentioned above don't change that basic tenet. Digital Images, on the other hand, are not immediate, they are not photographs, they are not recorded on light sensitive material, and the manipulations that occur, are not secondary to the image, but primary. Digital Imaging should be regarded as a non photographic form of art, as different from photography as painting/watercolor/drawing are. Digital imaging is not an adjunct to photography, it is an entirely separate and different form of image making. To label it photography is dishonest. I know that cameras can be converted to digital imaging tools, but they are then no longer cameras. I don't have anything against digital imaging, in fact I think it is a really tremendous new art form, I just don't understand why digital imagers want to trade on photography as their basis for entry into the art world. Photography developed over the course of the last century and a half through the hard work and vision of thousands of great photographers...each development along the way made it easier to obtain the image, from William Henry Jackson coating glass plates just before exposing the first pictures of Yellowstone the latest slide emulsions, each step along the way has been a refinement of the basic idea creating an image (at the moment of exposure) on light sensitive material. Digital imaging is not the next logical step in this progression, it is not even related to photography through science, history, tradition, or reality. To the digital imagers of the world, leave photography to photographers, create your own path to the masses (like all art forms have done in the past) What you people are doing is co-opting photography as a vehicle to get your new art form before the public....be proud of what you do (we, as photographers, are) state clearly, directly, and truthfully that the image you are presenting is not, and never was a photograph, but it is rather a digital image. The public won't care where the image came from (as long as they like it) and you won't be destroying an art form that took over 100 years to build.

What's missing in this debate is the purpose for which the image is being used. Modifying a news photo (whether digitally or otherwise) is probably intolerable, although there are obvious exceptions (e.g. sharpening an blurred photo to read a license plate). Similarly, a photo meant to document a scene or animal probably shouldn't be modified except to bring out detail already contained in the photo.

 

<p>

 

But most images are used simply because they look good. As long as these images are not used to deceive (e.g. part of a sales brochure to sell Flordia swampland), then it doesn't really matter how they were created - the editors who select the pictures for their magazine won't care whether the image came from a camera or a computer, they're just interested in putting the image in their art-oriented magazine.

 

<p>

 

An analogy can be made to TV and movies. Heavy digital editing a la Jurassic Park is perfectly acceptable, even desirable if the purpose is pure entertainment. For news or documentaries, it becomes more problematic, which is why news programs have been criticized for the staged "dramatic recreation." A tricky middle ground is the entertaining documentary: Movies like Apollo 13 and Titanic are meant primarily for entertainment; yet both directors took great pains to be as historically and scientifically accurate as possible in their special effects (both digital and conventional).

 

<p>

 

It's an issue that's hit medium after medium as computer technology has improved enough to make reproductions and modifications practically indistinguishable from originals. It's hit the music industry in the form of lip synching and "live" concerts being pre-recorded. Now it's hit photography. Soon we'll be discussing digitally modified home videos. Telling the people who do these things to go away won't accomplish anything. For better or for worse, digital manipulation is here to stay, and photographers are going to have to learn to coexist.

 

<p>

 

Developing accepted standards and markings which distinguish "original" images from "enhanced" images from "modified" images is a good start.

 

<p>

 

John Kim

Howard's post speaks my mind.

We should all read Howard's post above one more time because I really think it says it all. I began photography as a hobby 25 years ago and then after a long hiatus took it up again about 8 months ago. I made a vow to myself that I would use my own instincts and basic photography tools to create images. I am at least as competitive as the next guy out there and would love to ultimately see one or more of my images published. It's also satisfying to just have an image appreciated for what it communicates. I find it extremely frustarting to realiize that the playing field is not level. People competing to get images published are going to use tools I don't personally approve of. Even images to the critique site here are often manipulated. I suspect we are not going to be successful, but I think we should do anything possible to separate photography skills from computer skills. Otherwise, we will have no remaining criteria by which we can judge "photography."

Digital enhancing and imaging are with us to stay. Although I do very much agree with Howard's response, I am cynical enough to think that the industry response will be that suggested by Mark. Just think how much "deception" is done in fashion photography under the guise of "improvement." The editors of the fashion magazines I have perused in the last several years do not even mention digital manipulation of the images. Since I do believe that it is with us to stay, I think that a notification of manipulation should be given - even if that is in a box on page 5.

Oh, to try and stay on topic (sorry!)... i think this information should be divulged in such a way to be easily findable by anyone who cares to look. On the picture seems a bit extreme... on the facing page, in a caption, or otherwise reasonable place seems more realistic.

I'm getting pretty bored with the same old stuff being rehashed over

abd over again in these digital threads. I'm probably going to start

to delete any posts that don't make new contributions, so if your post vanishes (or has vanished already), it failed the test!

Most images hava a credit, unually crediting the photographer and stock agency. Some magazines also have a note if the (wildlife) image was obtained under controlled conditions (I think National Wildlife did this for a while, not sure if they still do). It would be quite possible to note digitally manipulated images in the same way - assuming the term could be

well enough defined (e.g. by the FoundView standards). I don't think

it's likely to happen, but it would be possible if the will was there.

I believe that computers are just another tool that we can use. The comment that stated "that the image you are presenting is not, and never was a photograph, but it is rather a digital image" is wrong. All of my digital photos start as prints or negatives that are then scanned into the computer. Would it be different if the output was back to a negative and then printed on "light sensative" paper instead of with a computer printer? No.

 

<p>

 

The issue, to me, is not what tools are used to manipulate an image, but if this information in disclosed. I feel that if an image is manipulated, at the time of exposure, in the darkroom, with a computer or in any other way that this should be diclosed. I like Bob's suggestion of adding it to the image credit. Hope that it catches on.

 

<p>

 

BTW - Dan, what were the changes made to the blue heron on the cover of Rangefinder magazine? Just curious.

Personally, I think that a digitally altered image should be clearly identified. Digital painting is not photography. Research the source of the word photography to see what I mean.

 

<p>

 

People who think these digitial images are the equivalent of a real photographer are the willing vicitims of those who would exploit the ignorance of others. They are the type of people who think that listening to a great piece of music on their home CD is the same as hearing being performed live by a quality orchestra.

Dan Smith says the image in question is "obviously a fake". With this a given, FoundView would <b>NOT</b> require any special notice for the image -- read their web-page carefully, especially under the B&W work.

 

<p>

 

It is because of this "catch" (and other problems) that I find FoundView to be a weak, ineffective "standard" to go by. Certainly good intentions, but alas, a very poor implementation that *will* be abused if it gains popularity. Heck, they almost invite it to be abused...

I don't think FoundView requires a digital illustration to be undetectable. Dan is an experienced photographer, even if he can spot

a fake, the vast majority of viewers won't.

 

<p>

 

Also FoundView is only an affirmative standard for indicating an image ISN'T manipulated. It wasn't intended to mark manipulated images, just the opposite in fact. Photographers who take pride in displaying

real photographs would probably embrace the FoundView standard, but I doubt if digital illustrators would want to put a mark on their work that basically says "Hey, this might look like a photograph, but it isn't!". That's why I suggested sneaking into the bookstore armed

with a bunch of stickers and doing it for them (...joke...not a serious suggestion).

 

<p>

 

FoundView isn't supposed to be a "standard". It's just a resource for those who <em>want</em> to affirm their work <em>isn't</em> digitally manipulated in a way that would deceive the viewer.

Could someone please explain the difference between a real photograph and what they're calling a fake? I'm just a poor dumb computer programmer who likes looking at pictures. I mean, if light goes into a lens and gets recorded somehow isn't "photo" getting "graphed"? I don't grasp the etymological issue here, any more than the aesthetic or artistic issue. The point is to make nice-looking pictures, right? Or do you also want to get into the issue of how much the Rodney King video was edited and whether the parts that were left out would affect an unbiased viewer's perception of whether an innocent helpless prisoner was being mercilessly beaten or officers were risking their lives subduing a drug user who was violently resisting arrest?

Quoting http://www.foundview.org/real.html:

 

<p>

 

<i>FoundView is designed to alert the viewer to image manipulations that are not immediately apparent. Black-and-white--like the use of soft-focus lenses, grainy films, texture screens, and other such manipulations--is so obvious to the viewer that no disclosive labeling is necessary, and images made this way (assuming forms and shapes are unchanged) can qualify as FoundView.</i>

 

<p>

 

I haven't seen the image that prompted Dan's question. But if, suppose, it did not involve the adjustment of "form or shape"(*), and if it is "obviously a fake"(!), FoundView seems to be saying the rubber stamp can come out. Perhaps the only nit is that we may have to de-saturate the image for this "rule" to apply.

 

<p>

 

It is this "obvious" catch [FoundView doesn't say to whom -- an experience photographer like Dan Smith, or some geek like me?], the special treatment of B&W, and the inconsistent application of the "could have been" proscription which lead me to my conclusion that FoundView is poorly thought out. As I said: nice idea, but flawed implementation.

 

<p>

 

I surmise these problems arise because someone wanted the work of Ansel Adams (AA) and the like to be regarded as FoundView. Which is fine. But in the spirit of <i>not deceiving the public</i>, I think FoundView or similar should be upfront about their intentions in this area. I sent e-mail about this to FoundView a few weeks ago, but received no response.

 

<p>

 

In the end, I think it will prove to be very ironic indeed when digital techniques eventually solve the problem. Cameras and image manipulation programs can cryptographically sign their products. So in addition to the image, one also hase a provenance of the transformations that took place right from the instant of exposure to final viewed image.

 

<p>

 

An analog photograph, or a digital one without this background information, would be rightly viewed with high suspicion if the image was being offered as evidence that a given event took place.

 

<p>

 

And if the image isn't being offered as such evidence, then, really, who gives a damn?

 

<p>

 

(*) Which may not be true since the image was "created in Photoshop", and we take a literal meaning of "create".

 

<p>

 

(!) Some (alot? most?) of AA's work is "obviously a fake" -- to someone who knows the tricks of B&W photography. AA was clear about this in one of his books when he mentions the pictures he made rarely reflected the reality that was in front of his lens.

I just wanted to clarify a couple of things...first I was wrong, if you take a photograph and scan IT WAS A PHOTOGRAPH, but when you put it into the computer it isn't any more. Photography is painting with light...digital imaging is painting with bytes...if you output it to light sesitive material it still isn't a photograph...but a digital image printed on photographic paper. The basic problem here is the conception that improving a negative (or positive) in camera or darkroom is the same as recreating it electronically. I don't have a problem with digital imaging, I just don't believe it is photography. What I don't understand is the reluctance of people who are obviously quite talented,to stand up and take credit for what they have created. The idea that digital images are just the same as photographs is just as logical as saying that hand tinted B&W photographs, are in fact color photographs. They are not, they are the result of hard work, talent, and imagination, but they are not color photographs. If I were able to do what many can with the computer toward creating images, I would be proud to point out that they were created by ME, and that they were not just a doctored photograph. I don't understand why the computer imagers want to hide their light under a bushel. Speak up..take credit for your fine and talented work, but please don't call them photographs.

I have seen the issue that Dan is talking about, in fact it was Dan's issue. I am not what would be concidered a professional photographer, or an expert by any means, but when Dan asked me to look at the image my imediate reaction was that is a fake, it was explained that the image was a photograph that was then scanned, the original background was removed it was placed on a black background, then cloned and reversed to form a reflection, and then some rings were added to make it appear that it had just landed. That is all of the information that was given. What was not mentioned is that it was obviously a heavily backlit subject and that there is way to much shadow detail on it to not have been either strobed or manipulated digitally, I tend to believe the later as the grain is very obvious which leads me to believe that it was not a full frame image and that it had been greatly inlarged, also if it was a natural image the reflection would not be as sharp as it was, and with that much detail on the heron you would have several iregularities reflecting in the water, it has also obviously had a sharpen filter applied. I personally feel that it should have been noted on the cover that it was a digitally enhanced image, this could have been done in a reconized way such as a liner about the article that was inside. Rangefinder Magazine has been around for years and is well renouned for its articles. I don't know much about this stmbol that Bob has been talking about but I do believe that a digitally manipulated image should always be identified as such and that it should be done so if not as a line on the bottom of the image then at least next to the image. I can just imagine someone who doesn't know that it is a digital image tearing their hair out trying to get a similar image.

Rob

It is startling to hear that photography has a 150 year history of truth and honesty!

 

<p>

 

In my view all media including drawing, painting, photography, video, and digital are interpretations by the authors who hope to convey their points of view.

 

<p>

 

In photography the author choses the subject, choses the lighting, choses the angle, choses the pose, crops the viewpoint, applies perspective, alters perspectives, filters the colours, selects exposures, applies multiple exposures, applies darkroom techniques, culls the images, selects presentation style, writes interpretations, hectors the viewer, etc etc etc. It is not difficult at each step to change the truths presented to the viewer.

 

<p>

 

I have disregarded the truth and honesty aspects of photography since the time I first read about and started doing darkroom work. Video and digital simply accelerate and proliferate the ability to manipulate the image and the viewer. These expanded capabilities enable the imagemaker to approach the artistic scope enjoyed by writers, sculpters, and painters.

 

<p>

 

It was always too late to close pandora's box! Who will patrol the certification schemes? Will we need to disclose that that vinyard rarely has rainbows, or that that elk was actually in a herd of seven, or that that mountaintop is normally grey and not sunset red? Who will believe it and who will care?

 

<p>

 

Regular folks have seen enough interpretive photography and video (and literature and sculpture and painting etc) to understand that the truth and honesty of images varies a lot, and regular folks have rational expectations about the images they see. They knoe that even scientific work is subject to interpretation by researchers. My guess is that they will ignore the hand wringing of the photography elites in the way that they ignore the political elites, and good for them!

 

<p>

 

I am happy to make interpretive images and admire the images made by others without fretting too much about truth and honesty.

 

<p>

 

Cheers..

PS. I personally dislike the process of doing digital photography and plan to avoid it for a long long time. Cheers..

The invention of and subsequent developments in photography blurred

the boundaries of, what was once a well defined difference, between

the real world and the world as expressed by artists on canvas.

People would accept photographic images as a portrayal of the

objective environment and yet the experienced printer could manipulate

these to enhance the original scene. What we are now seeing is the

development of digital image manipulation, allowing the experienced

computer operator (with the necessary photographic understanding) to

undefine the once clearly defined boundaries between the traditional

photograph and the objective environment.

 

<p>

 

In terms of the image of the Great Blue Heron it is, in my opinion, an

insult to the author to ask him/her to declare the medium by which the

image was created. As a front cover the photograph would have been

selected for its overall appeal and it would only be a matter of

interest to divulge how it was created. Of course, had the image been

used to illustrate an article on the life of a Great Blue Heron, then

the photograph would be of misleading content. However, the image may

still be appropriate for such an article and if it was to be used then

there would be grounds for some kind of declaration.

 

<p>

 

To say it will give those who believe "one more reason to distrust

images" is, I feel, a misconception in terms of how peole view images.

It is, in my opinion, more likely that people have a distrust of all

images they see and are either convinced of their reality or

otherwise by the success or failure of the processes employed in their

creation, which is a purely subjective response.