Jump to content

Fact and Fiction in Modern Photography


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Thanks... also the preceding article http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/world-press-photo-manipulation-ethics-of-digital-photojournalism/ is worth reading.<br>

Personally, while I find it good there is discussion about the ethics in photo journalism, I think it is too much pointing at the 'photo' part, while the real ethics discussion is about the journalism part. In a way, this whole same debate could be made about written press, video or online publishing. Each of them has their method to make things appear and disappear from view, it's not a treat unique to photos and/or photoshop.<br>

Alongside discussions on the level of perfection that is being presented in model photos, portraits and so on (where manipulations well beyond what is discussed in these articles are pretty normal), it isn't weird that journalism has a hard time avoiding this way of working. In the same way that novellists acting as writing journalists is a slippery slope; in the same way many documentary films are more like Hollywood movies. <br>

I understand the Lens blog is about the photography world, and as said, it's a good discussion to be had, but it's worth it (to me) to not see this as a discussion on photography as a whole, but rather on journalism.</p>

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Agree with Wouter.</p>

<p>I will just add that photography tends to be more a matter of perspective than fact or fiction. The closest thing to "reality" is a wide range of perspectives. (The same usually holds true of written accounts.)</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Gentlepersons: </p>

<p>I realize I’m in the minority opinion by disapproving Photoshop manipulated (sensationalized) so-called news pictures. On the other hand I did witness the rise of Nazi Germany. </p>

<p>The article mentioned story telling. But is it a guise for manipulation? Is it conditioning us to accept the big lies? Manipulation is advocated by many, provided it is the right kind of manipulation. You know, it’s for the right reasons or right cause. How does the manipulator determine what the right reason/cause is? Why it is their cause, dummy! </p>

<p>And so Orwellian dishonesty is defended... by those with something to gain. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I realize I’m in the minority opinion by disapproving Photoshop manipulated (sensationalized) so-called news pictures. On the other hand I did witness the rise of Nazi Germany.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Godwin's law invoked, and only on the third post of the thread! <br /> <br /> Congrats, Mr. Burke, for analogizing the use of Photoshop to Nazism. Had I not read the Internet on this good morning, I might have remained untouched by such stellar moral reasoning.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>...minority opinion by disapproving Photoshop manipulated (sensationalized) so-called news pictures</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So far, nobody, including all the interviewed in the NY times articles, approved of Photoshop manipulated sensationalized news pictures, in fact. The point made was more that words can twist the news as much as Photoshop can.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mr. Willemse...</p>

<p>“The point made was more that words can twist the news as much as Photoshop can.” Yes, I understand that. I, rightly or wrongly, got out of the article and sub-authors that the writers are (or can be) even bigger deceivers than photo manipulators. My point is that it is all wrong. </p>

<p>The reason I brought up the Nazis is that their whole culture, government, party policy etc. were built, based on and made successful on public information manipulation. </p>

<p>Mr. Mike Godwin (Godwin’s law) was born in 1956. He went to Jr. High, High School and college in the 1970s. Maybe he feels free to smirk over ancient history. I was born in 1919. I spent about the same formative years of my life in the 1930s as I watched the rise and exercise of Nazi power. I heard the defenders, the detractors, the enthusiasts and the appeasers. Then I had to pay the price and sometimes even worse, watch others pay the price. </p>

<p>History has a way of repeating itself. </p>

<p>So, I stand firmly against the manipulation of public perception in any form. I realize most board members will think I should apologize for my stance, I don’t. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I feel as if I'm witnessing first hand the manipulation of words and information, so it may serve as a very good example of just what this thread is about. Photoshop's ability (in the hands of certain photographers) to exaggerate, hyperbolize, and manipulate pales in comparison to what can be accomplished by chat room posts.</p>

<p>No need for or expectation of an apology. All posts here serve an important purpose.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I find it unfortunate that photography is put by some people into a box, unlike other methods of communication, which have the freedom to experiment, push the borders, and promote self-expression. Much artwork that has appeared in news publications over the years has been expressive - portraits of important public figures that reveal a specific view of their positions, personality, etc. are a good example. Writers can opine in columns and sometimes in news articles. Artists and writers can use tools, new and old, to creatively communicate. Somehow, photographers can't use certain tools, according to people who have a regressive attitude towards photography like Burke, and like the author of the article, to use their craft to become art in expression. Instead, it has to sit in this box of "truth" that doesn't really exist.</p>

<p>In contrast, the new generation generally doesn't see it this way at all. Hopefully this will make photography as valid a medium for communication as drawing and writing. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A necessary read on the topic is<br>

King, David<br>

1999 <em>The Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin's Russia.</em> Henry Holt and Company.</p>

<img id="summary-frontcover" title="Front Cover" src="http://books.google.com/books/content?id=NFIXQAAACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&imgtk=AFLRE73-qLSPy5WfLoO5at2tPI6lgIfLhqDa52EnLZuKrTwR3mchmetytFujLjyn8b4orubm4x42wqEBsfLo55cKGLvFQUTxi9M9ubAHYFuHhhGkSEyYqKP6CJr-frReUoqhgK8ALOD7" alt="Front Cover" width="128" border="1" />

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>C Watson, interesting read, thanks for posting.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Mr. Menon, now retired, recalled that “only once the shooting started did everyone share” what they had, largely in meetings between British and Indian officials, and then “the picture instantly came into focus.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is called 'Hindsight', and it's always 20/20.<br>

What I find extremely disturbing is that the American government always seems to have some link to the nefarious activities of both the international 'terrorist' and criminal underworld. How, why, and for what good reason was the DEA involved with using an informant linked to these people? I don't imagine we will ever find out the full truth of our government's activities in this case and in the Muslim world in general; but, I really can't blame people if they view the US government with great suspicion.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p >I feel compelled to chime in here, particularly regarding my interpretation of A.T. Burke's comments. First, however, some brief comments on the article itself, since that is what this thread was originally about. From the article, a quote from Maggie Steber, photographer:</p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><em>"We can show reality. Or we can, in projects which might be more personal, photograph fictional or staged stories. But we cannot mix them."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p > Perhaps it is the fact that my BA was in Journalism that I so strongly agree with this statement by Ms Steber. To Jeff Spirer's point, I don't think we should put photography "into a box", but for certain genres of photography (photojournalism being prime among them) it is necessary for there to be certain guidelines. If that is a box, then so be it. No one is stopping anyone from manipulating to their heart's content. Fantastical manipulations like those done by Miss Aniela <a href="https://calliegarp.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/the-smothering-2008.jpg">https://calliegarp.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/the-smothering-2008.jpg</a> are extremely popular and have been around for years. Photographers can use all manner of manipulations, digital or analog, to communicate their ideas, to create works of art, to express themselves, to give us more creative portraits of individuals famous or not famous, etc. But allowing certain types of manipulation into a photographic genre (photojournalism) which purports to show a two-dimensional version of something which, in reality, actually occurred is altogether different in my opinion.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >There was an article in American Photo a few months back (“Processing the News” December 2014) that showed some selected before and after versions of news photographer's work. Although I did not agree with some of the choices from an aesthetic standpoint (the levels of a photo of protesters in Cairo were adjusted to the point that the photo looked more like an Annie Liebovitz set piece for Vanity Fair than a news photograph), they primarily utilized the digital equivalents of dodging and burning. In one there was a slight toning effect. I can live with that. But to my knowledge, none of them manipulated the figures or objects (meaning they did not add or delete any) that appeared in front of their lens. Clone out a dust spot? Fine. Clone out a garbage can or an existing light pole because it created an inconvenient merge? Not fine. I don't know what the contemporary journalistic guidelines are for photographs, but I suspect that some of the things I mentioned above are fairly close to the guidelines in terms of what can and cannot be done. Anything goes in the world of art and I firmly believe that certain types of photographs can be art. But if you include photojournalism under that “anything goes” umbrella then it loses its meaning and purpose. (This doesn't necessarily follow from what I just wrote, but what just popped into my mind was the thought of how much impact Russell Sorgi's "Hotel Genesee Suicide" would lose if it was a contemporary photograph and we found out that it was just a gruesome version of a Miss Aniela style Photoshop manipulation: <a href="http://www.loveisapreludetosorrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/suicide.jpg">http://www.loveisapreludetosorrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/suicide.jpg</a> )</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Regarding A.T. Burke's remarks: I interpreted them differently than some people in this thread have done. (Fred, I have to be honest. This is not an attack on you personally, but I heartily dislike Godwin's so-called “Law” as I find it to be a smarmy way of dismissing an entire argument solely on the basis of it having made reference to Nazis or Nazi Germany. To me it's a verbal internet meme, far too clever by half, and runs the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. “If an internet discussion goes on long enough, someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or the Nazis.” And? So? Meaningless internet canon for the technologically hip. Just as one can “play the Nazi Card” or “play the race card”, it is also possible for one to play the “Godwin card”. Is there a “law” for that? Spare me.) Although I don't liken intentional manipulation to Goebbel's propaganda machine, I do feel more and more as if the constant barrage of social and informational media that we subject ourselves to can turn many of us into easily manipulated clones, unwitting and unknowing torch bearers for a homogenized global corporatism. Although this may not be the type of thing A.T. Burke was talking about, I can see how photographic manipulation can be used to bend and shape social and political opinions to achieve the ends of unseen overlords. But it is possible to see the negative possibilities of manipulation while also appreciating the positive artistic uses to which it can be put. Pointing out the negative does not automatically mean that one is denying, or trying to restrict, the positive.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Interestingly, the article included part of an interview with W. Eugene Smith in which he did not seem to come out against the possible “analog” manipulation of a scene. The manipulation debate existed long before the digital age.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Although I don't liken intentional manipulation to Goebbel's propaganda machine</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right. That was my point. <br>

<br>

Another point is that Photoshop is not the culprit. The sensibility that seeks to manipulate social and political facts is the culprit. That the Nazis were able to manipulate photos and the Stalinists were able to manipulate photos is evidence that photo manipulation was taking place long before Photoshop came along. Was it the dastardly darkrooms that were to blame or the minds of the people who used the darkroom as a tool of deception?<br>

<br>

Another important difference which seems to go unnoticed in the analogy between the historical propagandists and Photoshop manipulation is that systematic state-sponsored propaganda by oppressive and in many cases murderous governments is different from individual instances of news photo manipulation.<br>

<br>

The fact that "the people" may have become a bunch of "manipulated clones" can't be laid at the doorstep of one particular cause. Corporations feed our government officials who both feed the mainstream media (and a lot of so-called non-mainstream media). And "the people" are too busy working more and more for a lot less to become too involved in what's happening, though they do seem to have time for American Idol and football! News photo manipulation is not responsible for the tendency toward society becoming <em>"unwitting torch bearers for a homogenized global corporatism." </em>I'd lay that primarily at the doorstep of those very same corporations and the government officials who are in their pockets.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I mean, come on, you've got CNN, MSNBC, and FOX (not to mention ABC, CBS, and NBC) regularly disseminating garbage and infotainment, none of which has much if anything to do with photo manipulation. I don't know that the big worry with regard to where the public is at news-wise is a rampant misuse of Photoshop somewhat akin to Nazi propaganda.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>FAIW, here's an HCB "decisive moment" that is a completely unmanipulated, unstaged, un-PhotoShopped<strong> lie</strong>:</p>

<p>http://colectivofuturo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/20_lg.jpeg</p>

<p>(The woman on the right is actually striking the woman on the left, and her grimace is from the strain of her striking motion, not some frenzied gleefulness at dragging a wrongdoer before an ad hoc court.)</p>

<p>To me, what makes a photo truthful is that it tells the truth, as reasonably understood by an ordinary person. It's little more than that. Staging, posing, re-creation, and PhotoShopping can actually be utilized in a truthful photographic process, IMO. Every one of my photos passes through PhotoShop (and previously through PaintShop Pro). Half of my images are heavily processed, although few look like it. And yet I feel my photography is more truthful than most journalism. Most of my photography would not pass the "truth test" in the journalism community, and most of today's journalism doesn't really adhere to my own standards of truth. I find that both troubling and amusing.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree with AT Burke and Gubin that at least in the area of journalism, playing fast with the facts to deceive, embellish, change or alter the truth in order to propagandize or for any other reason should be sternly sanctioned. There's plenty of other places for art and interpretation where the public assumes what they are seeing is the artist's interpretation. And I don't confuse ABC, NBC, CBS the NY Times with Fox and MSNBC. Fan boys understand the latter two to be their support groups. Unfortunately, the rest of the people think the former are presenting the news straight which, unfortunately, is also distant from the truth.</p>

<p>There have been many discussion on this issue; Here's one:</p>

<p>http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/world-press-photo-manipulation-ethics-of-digital-photojournalism/</p>

<p>The NY Times has photo standards. Unfortunately, the words they publish often don't match their photo requirement as they too propagandize and embellish to sway public opinion to their editor's viewpoints. </p>

<p>Here's their photo standard:</p>

<p>http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/the-guidelines-on-our-integrity-from-1999-are-worth-a-look/</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Photography and Images. Images in our pages that purport to depict reality must be genuine in every way. No people or objects may be added, rearranged, reversed, distorted or removed from a scene (except for the recognized practice of cropping to omit extraneous outer portions). Adjustments of color or gray scale should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction, analogous to the “burning” and “dodging” that formerly took place in darkroom processing of images. Pictures of news situations must not be posed. In the cases of collages, montages, portraits, fashion or home design illustrations, fanciful contrived situations and demonstrations of how a device is used, our intervention should be unmistakable to the reader, and unmistakably free of intent to deceive. Captions and credits should further acknowledge our intervention if the slightest doubt is possible. The design director, a masthead editor or the news desk should be consulted on doubtful cases or proposals for exceptions.</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I agree with AT Burke and Gubin that at least in the area of journalism, playing fast with the facts to deceive, embellish, change or alter the truth in order to propagandize or for any other reason should be sternly sanctioned.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Great. Now it seems we pretty much agree, at least on these simple basics. There might be some contention about changing a photo "for any other reason" since Gubin, himself, and others suggest that some aesthetic choices can ethically be made and Sarah suggests that some changes made in post processing actually reflect more accuracy than an original file might (with which I agree).<br /> <br /> So any disagreement, to me, seems to be over just which actions automatically suggest to us that they were being done "to deceive" (and for me that would include actions in the taking of the picture and adopting a perspective as well as actions after the picture was taken) and whether a piece of software ought to be blamed for such deception. My own disagreement also extends to whether even certain manipulations we might wind up objecting to were necessarily done with the same kind of malignant intent as the Nazis possessed and spread with their propaganda machine.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fred: it doesn't take much deception to create major problems. We got into the second Iraq War because of a picture of "yellow cake" and some fast and loose words at the UN by our representatives.</p>

<p>Of course this is nothing new. The Spanish-American War of 1898 was the start of "yellow journalism" when Hearst and Pulitzer egged on the War with lies about what was going on. <br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish%E2%80%93American_War</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Note to self -- Never post late at night when you are tired, cranky, and frustrated over things which have no real connection to the topic being discussed. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Fred G -- <em>The fact that "the people" may have become a bunch of "manipulated clones" can't be laid at the doorstep of one particular cause.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>No, of course not. And that's not what I meant to imply. If I had not gotten carried away by a anti-corporatist, anti-Godwin's Law tirade, the following pretty much sums up all I really meant to say:</p>

<p>1.) Certain types of manipulation should be acceptable for news photographs (dodging and burning, contrast, perhaps some cropping, b&w conversion maybe?, etc). But other types of manipulation (inserting or removing major elements which significantly alter what appeared in front of the camera) should not. I'm sure AP, Reuters, professional Journalism organizations and the like all have their guidelines which seek to cover the specifics. This should be self-governing (which I believe it currently is), no governmental agency or legislative body should be regulating this outside of enforcing already existing laws concerning libel and slander. </p>

<p>2.) Item 1 above has absolutely nothing to do with Photoshop specifically, nor does it imply that anyone should be criticized or restricted from utilizing any type of manipulation they want to use (analog or digital) in their work. It is <em>desirable</em> that someone does not pass off a manipulated photo as an actual news event which never really occurred. There need be no laws governing this (excepting those currently existing laws mentioned in 1. above). Professionals are answerable to the clients or organizations for which they work, or to which they belong. Private individuals will face the scorn of the public when their hoax is exposed. </p>

<p>3.) I chose to interpret A.T. Burke's comments to be pointing out that, in the context of the article under discussion, photographic manipulation could be used to further nefarious ends or agendas and we should be on guard. Based upon what he had seen of the world since 1919, his viewpoint, though interpreted as a bit extreme by those of us born decades later, gives him a certain wariness and concern toward technological developments which we take for granted and generally see as beneficial. I also felt that he was jumped on a bit and that his words were misconstrued to encompass a draconian censorship, or condemnation, of all photographers who manipulate their photographs. I don't think he meant to imply that digital manipulation is the <em>only</em> or <em>worst</em> means by which oppressive governments or big business collectives seek to control and manipulate human beings.</p>

<p>Lastly, I thank you, Fred, for showing great restraint in not even referring to, or taking me to task, for my tirade regarding Godwin's Law!</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Steve, fortunately in America at least, the Constitution's Freedom of Speech allows all the lying that people, papers, and other organizations can muster other than things like "Truth in Advertising" which really has to do with commercial fraud not free speech. Telling the truth or not is pretty much is self regulating which is supremely better in the long run than government interference.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In scientific data recording, the <em>most</em> that should be done is to "spot out" dust specks on the film image. Although there have been more-frequent-than-we'd-like cases of fraud lately, too little attention has been paid to the possibilities of digital manipulation of images. Any manipulation (contrast, color, etc.) to 'bring out detail' has to be stated and indicated.</p>

<p>It begins to turn a little ambiguous if you start doing things like cloning out a cigarette butt, although cropping is acceptable so long as it doesn't falsify. Taking out your <em>former</em> friend or ex-partner is not acceptable. ;)<br /> Original images whether film or digital must always be preserved absolutely intact.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...