Does a Documentry Photograph have to be honest?

[vrankin]

<p>I said,</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>Jeff Spirer said,<br /> <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.<br /> Obviously I wasn't talking about the usual darkroom stuff. I wrote "Altering of content", as in changing subjects, backgrounds, etc. Why do I need to explain that?</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Plenty of content can be altered in the darkroom. In particular, cropping often completely changes what is happening, but I have burned/dodged out subject matter. Anyone good enough can do that and I've seen it in photos. Simply altering tonal relationships alters the content. And "straight photo out of the camera" doesn't include those kinds of things.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>I think one can make rhetorical experiment and answer the OP question negatively: "No, DP does not [necesserily] have to be honest." and see where this will lead our scheme of moral phylosophy. Can very well happen, it will simply lead us to there we already are, actually. Honesty after all is but moral category.</p>

[movingfinger]

<p>A real but light-weight characterization of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics is "the observer has an effect on the observed." This characterization applies even more so in regards to human affairs. Simply the presence of a photographer in any situation of human interaction will effect that interaction and the humans involved will act and react differently than they would without a camera present. Arguably this effect will be more pronounced with a "documentary photographer" present, since his/her presence is precisely with the goal of recording and presenting the affair to others who could then have a future influence on the affair that is being documented. Certainly in civil wars such an impact is very pronounced. Bring in a camera to document such an event and when that camera is with the blue side, the inhumanity and injustice of the red side will be magnified by all the blue participants on whom the camera is pointed and the scenes to which the camera is given access. In addition, with human affairs, the observer doing the documenting, being himself a human, most likely has a going in position. If the documentary photographer is documenting the effects of an oil spill then most likely he or she has a going in position of being for or against big oil companies, taking strong measures to protect the environment, etc. These positions will impact where they point their cameras and what stories they seek to tell with the photographs. How do words like 'honesty' and 'truth' apply to photographs from these and countless other such scenarios? I see little difference in staging a scene to be photographed and pointing one's camera to the right rather than the left because on the right is a scene that highlights my going in bias whereas to the left is a scene that does not support my going in bias.</p>

[andi_bair]

<p>Good point. In photography, as in life, honesty and truth are a continuum. There are levels and shades. The photographer's bias is an additional factor. That is why the most remembered photos are the ones where the photographer's bias is perceived to be against, not for, the the values expressed by the photo. As in the iconic picture of the North Vietnamese being shot by a South Vietnamese soldier (US side) point-blank during the Vietnam war.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p> I see little difference in staging a scene to be photographed and pointing one's camera to the right rather than the left because on the right is a scene that highlights my going in bias whereas to the left is a scene that does not support my going in bias.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>An honest photographer like an honest reporter would tell both sides. Their jobs are to present the facts and let the viewers/readers form their own opinions. Good editorial staff would review both the photos and text to make sure the story isn't biased before it's published. As the viewer/reader, I like to make up my own mind. Don't you? I'm sure you don't prefer to be lied to either.</p>

<p>Once I realize a media outlet distorts their news including photos and copy to fit their editorial positions, I read everything they produce with skepticism and check other sources. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Their jobs are to present the facts and let the viewers/readers form their own opinions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Sounds boring to me. I bring my own viewpoint to everything I shoot. "The facts" are what I see. I could care less about someone else's viewpoint. They can take their own photos if they want to say something.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>Eh, and how about that famy shot of Jack Ruby and LHO in Dallas Air or Armstrong on the Moon? The shots are great but time is going on and in todays world similar sort of pictures would be rather irrelevant and few people woluld pay so much attention as to look or click a like somewhere. In this sense presumed honesty factor would have to be reduced to a level of personal value or a habit of given photographer.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>present the facts</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Inevitably a photographer can't help but choose which facts to present and which not to. When he frames stuff into the shot, he also frames stuff out of the shot. That immediately creates a new set of facts (without an original context), rather than simply presenting the facts that are there. It's dangerous ever to assume one is seeing anything but photographic facts in a photo. What relationship they have to the facts present at the time of shooting is anybody's guess and will vary greatly. A photo necessarily has within it a perspective, another fact which affects the facts being shot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>An honest photographer like an honest reporter would tell both sides.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Things are rarely black or white but instead have a lot of gray area between those. A photographer or reporter could easily tell both sides and a third party might still accuse him of not telling the third, fourth, or fifth side. Since no photographer that I've ever met or whose work I've ever seen is God, the complete story will never be told in a photo or an article, meaning ALL sides can't realistically get aired by one person. Furthermore, this requires way too much of a reporter or photojournalist. If he's supposedly telling the facts (which ought to be neutral) then he shouldn't be dividing things up into sides but rather looking as objectively as possible beyond the sides.</p>

<p>The consumer of news and journalistic photos may have a responsibility to utilize a variety of sources if he ever wants to get to the facts as they were at the time. Relying on one reporter or one photo to get the facts is rarely if ever going to cut it.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Recently, because of DNA, we've seen many convicted felons go free often because many of facts of the case were hidden by biased prosecutors who were looking to advance politically. So innocent people spent years in jail. When we go to our surgeon we want to hear the "odds" and full truth of the situation, not some biased view because he only makes money if he performs the operation. </p>

<p>I like to think reporters and photojournalists consider themselves professionals in the news business. I'm sure they learned all about bias and truth in journalism school and what they are suppose to do ethically when reporting the news. After all, do we want to have bad public policy created based on lies and distortions? While nothing is perfect, is it too much to expect these people to set aside their biases and present the truth as best they can? </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The assumption that one <em>can ever</em> set aside bias (perspective) is questionable. That's why some trust in truth along with healthy doses of skepticism and variety of source material is how I pursue any notion of a truthful reportage of the "facts."</p>

<p>And, still, I think documentary and journalism are two different things.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Yeah, I'm a skeptic too. I usually take what I read with a grain of salt and check other sources. Even when I get photography advice on photo forums :)</p>

<p> </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Documentary has always been to me, an editorial exercise to present a viewpoint. This means that photos can be presented totally to represent the view point of the author or photographer. To be called documentary, I suppose the opinion being expressed should be "honest". This is a modernist view of "documentary". <br>

However there are other type of documentary in a post modern sense, that is concerned with creating a narrative, a story or to breakdown and reveal the un-truth of a belief, that is just as honest, Robert Franks comes to mind where he took "documentary" truthful photographs depicting several things about America, including revealing the suppressed truths about the harsh reality of American life that shocked the worldview that many Americans believed in and harsh truths they didn't want to see.<br>

Than there is the "new documentary" that are pure narrative, and only use photos to fit designs of the photographer/artist. These are just a few of the ways to approach "documentary"<br>

Who can say what "honest" even means. Nice topic Allen</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Just as Shakespeare's plays, which were not the same as spontaneous street performance, told truths</p>

<p>Greater, truths.</p>

<p>So, a photographer seeks truths, but time and circumstances unwilling, he is unable to capture on camera....the fullness, the perceived honesty... of the events which he would like to portray. The truth of the camera.</p>

<p>So, he recreates them from the minds eye,a honesty he/she perceives.</p>

<p>A Documentary from the real vision his/her eye has perceived.</p>

<p>As opposed to the belief the camera never lies and always tells a honest story.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>The honesty of the camera, the honesty of the photographer, perhaphs an entanglement.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Much what Barry noted; a documentary photographer should be honest towards himself, I think. Give a presentation of his honest view on the matter at hand to the viewer. Meaning that if the photographer is an ultra-right wing racist, his honest view could ethically be seen as completely dishonest for many others - but it would still make one coherent documentary. Not so much an universal honesty, but a personal consistency, an individual clear opinion that is and remains prevalent throughout. Else, as a series of photos, things will start to fall apart, and just be a bunch of photos, rather than a documentary.</p>

<p>While the ability to tell two sides to the story is certainly laudable (welcome also), it does require a certain intellectual distance which may make photos (or stories) less engaged. Plus, having a clear opinion does not mean you have to judge differing opinions or claim they are wrong or false - though this seems to go wrong more often than not.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>A moment of a mechanical process, that is devoid of the human/ theatrical approach, that reveals only specific moments in time. For instanct a painter will put a compostion of moments together to complete a finished scene. The photograph plagiatrizes .... a mechanicaly.... percieved reality that is claimed as a truth without falshoods.<br>

　<br>

The camera does not lie.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>"The camera does not lie."</p>

<p>... nor does it tell the truth.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Cameras or photos show pictures and often tell stories. Well, that's if you allow me the poetic license to claim a photo can "tell" a story! Hey, maybe that's what photos have . . . poetic license. </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"The camera does not lie."<br>

... nor does it tell the truth.</p>

<p>Indeed, we tell truths or falsehoods. Just us.</p>

<p>But we believe in the honesty of the machine...true and just and pure.</p>

<p>Straight from the machine..... the truth.</p>

 

[Brad_]

Photographs do not tell stories. They do have the ability to stir imagination and release narrative within a

viewer's mind.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>LOL. I guess I'm not necessarily going to be granted the poetic license I asked for. :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if you allow me the poetic license to claim a photo can "tell" a story</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd hoped the caveat and quotation marks would provide the necessary clues to what I was actually saying.</p>

[Brad_]

License to anthropomorphize granted, Fred. :) Just wanted to expand on what's happening, though I know

it's obvious to many - a tedious Winnogrand quote on that subject being a pet peeve of mine.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>To take it even a little further, what's fascinating is when a bunch of people's imaginations seem to go to the same place (or at least a similar one) when viewing the same photo. I think that's often why it's not uncommon to say the photo tells the story (rather than thinking about it as a matter of the imagination of the viewer). It's why I think there's something to be said for our shared experience and our cultural milieu. The imagination still and all is incited and inspired by the picture and, because we share certain sensibilities and symbolic reasoning, the story (I think) often does go beyond our own imaginations. We almost can't help but see certain things in certain ways. It would be a struggle, most times, not to see a cross as having a particular significance (even if we are atheists we recognize the symbol). If we simply take it as two sticks intersecting each other, we do risk missing some of the human/historical/cultural content of the picture. Once we see it as a cross, we've gone beyond even our own imagination. For me, at least, though the picture is not literally telling the story, the picture is imbued with something significant. Our shared responses to so many pictures is a powerful part of the experience, IMO, and does on some level speak to an objective as well as a subjective experience or, and I prefer this, a holistic experience.</p>

[starshooter]

<p>The camera does not lie, the camera does not tell the truth. It records. The central question is not how we can manipulate words. The central question is if the photograph is truly of a soldier dying on the battlefield or was it posed and presented to the public as the real deal? Is it a news photo or a photo illustration?</p>