Fact and Fiction in Modern Photography

[DB_Gallery]

It feels increasingly good to live my life as a photographer under the watchful self imposed eye of employing a strict

photojournalistic ethic, and that applies to every genre I shoot.

 

I'm not even remotely tempted to do otherwise, the truth has always set me and kept me free.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Daniel, when I shoot other genres besides forensic, journalistic, and some documentary, I often find deeper truths in creatively manipulating my photos than would ever be found in accurately rendering them. I think there are significant differences between truth, one's emotional/expressive truth, and accuracy. Consider people who write fiction where, even though it's fiction it can tell important human truths. Having said that, I applaud and appreciate what you find works for you and embrace our different methodologies.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Gentlepersons:</p>

<p>Point 1: I think (but don’t know for sure) what caused Mr. G’s ire with my post was that he thought I was decrying or bashing the Photoshop program. I was using Photoshop in the current lexicon as a generic term for photo altering. If I had used old fashion terms like airbrushing or going back farther, etching or scraping fewer folks would connect those words to photo altering.</p>

<p>Point 2: I was addressing the photo part of disinformation rather than the spoken or printed word, not because I was unaware that the other existed but because this is a photo oriented web site.</p>

<p>Point 3: I don’t know how chatrooms came into a discussion of photo journalism. I was a child in the 1920s. We did not have chatrooms. We did have sandlots, parks, playgrounds and back yards. Sometimes when a group of children seemed to be having a good time, all of a sudden some child would start wailing with tears running down his/her cheeks. Often the child ran home and cried something like “Mommy, do you know what little Billy said.”</p>

<p>“Mommy” then took action with little Billy or told their child to dust it off. Either way, the group play resumed, often like nothing happened.</p>

<p>Aren’t today’s chatrooms no more than yesterday’s sandlot for people who are over 21 but not adults? Maybe the biggest difference is that chatroom users lack the ability to dust it off. </p>

<p>It is not photo journalism.</p>

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

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Bayer...</p>

<p>Good for you! </p>

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

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Gubin...</p>

<p>“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.” </p>

<p>Yes, living through history does give me a different viewpoint. May I say that it is not the technology I’m concerned about (see my point 1 in an earlier post) but the increased in the amount of purposeful disinformation coming from so-called trusted sources like the “Free Press” and government. I see history repeating itself. Different technology is in use to propagate the same old stuff for the same old reason. </p>

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

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Mr. Burke (et al),</p>

<p>While I was somewhat perturbed in thinking that there was a swipe being taken at Photoshop specifically, my ire was due to the Nazis being brought into it, as I stated. Now, obviously you and others can think that was an overreaction or whatever, but please take me at my word that that was, as I said above, the cause for my angry reaction.</p>

<p>In terms of photography, I think this thread has been a bit slippery. When security guards and police officers freak out because photos are being taken, we ask for a little bit of sobriety and ask them not to react with such fear of our cameras and process. When we take what we consider to be innocent and artistic street photos, we ask people on those public streets not to freak out at the site of us taking photos. We seem to be hyper-sensitive to overreactions about the nefarious intents of photographers and effects of photos.</p>

<p>Yet, in this thread, we seem to be slipping and sliding, with legitimate and grave concerns over the lies government is feeding us and the distortions often sold by news media. And then we're applying all that to news photos, as if we've experienced the same lies and distortions from those photos on as regular a basis as we do from the government and from the news media in general. Many examples have been given—Lyndon Johnson's lies, George Bush's lies—as if this pertains in any way to photography, which it does not. So where are the examples in contemporary times of all these lies and distortions foisted on us by photos? The primary ones I can think of are celebrity portraits which are airbrushed often beyond the point where I can believe these people are actually human. But do we have many examples of news photos that have been altered with malicious propagandistic intent?</p>

<p>I'll keep an open mind here, and if someone can supply especially some examples of systematic photographic hoaxes that have led to our political perceptions being dangerously misinformed as a society, I will certainly take those under advisement. But, as of right now, I am much more in touch with all the important things we've learned from photos, especially in recent years, from the pictures at Abu Ghraib to all the pictures of the Arab Spring.</p>

<p>I'm a bit defensive about Photoshop but, yes, I'm even more defensive about the overall integrity of most serious journalistic photos. Photos that have bothered me recently were the ones from photographers embedded with troops in the early days of the Iraq war. Many came off as cheerleader photos for war rather than objective documentation of what was going on. But that was about the perspective with which they were shot and the overall role and context many photographers were put into by the companies they were working for. And, of course, the skewed perspective had nothing to do with how the photos were post processed.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Errol Morris's "Believing is Seeing" lends some much-needed focus to the brawl:</p>

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/books/review/believing-is-seeing-by-errol-morris-book-review.html?_r=0</p>

[AJHingel]

<p> I think, Fred, as so often, formulated the most central viewpoint of this discussion: <br>

<br>

<em>"I often find deeper truths in creatively manipulating my photos than would ever be found in accurately rendering them". </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

He is not alone, with that observation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth, at least the truth that is given to us to understand. (P. Picasso)</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. G...</p>

<p>Ok, The Photoshop question may be solved? But then why is it so bad to bring up what I see as the wrong in the Nazi regime? Do you feel that I am a Nazi basher? Do you feel that I was bullying them? Do you feel that my stance as just prejudice against a regime that does not deserve some distaste? </p>

<p>I do not get it. Perhaps I just don’t see them in the “right” light. </p>

<p>On the Iraq photos...Some media seemed to show photos that put our efforts in good light, others in a bad light. Also, in the beginning, much of the media hyped that we were doing everything right. As the public grew weary, the media portrayed the war in a lesser light. I resent the news pandering rather than reporting. That is not news but is propaganda and belongs on a talk show with someone like Allen Combs to pander to the left or ol’ Rush to pander to the right. That is talk..like bar talk or water cooler talk. People who convince themselves that talk shows are hard news deserved to remain ignorant. </p>

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

[AlanKlein]

<p>Often, photos depict the truth in that there is no editing. It's the caption or article along side that purports to identify what the photo is showing that's the lie. So the meaning of the photo becomes a lie as well. </p>

<p>I'm thinking of that photo of the polar bear standing on a small ice flow surrounded by a lot of sea. The caption says that due to changes in climate the habitat of the bear is disintegrating. But when you really check you find that bears have been floating around on single flows for thousands of years as the seasons up north change into summer. Nothing new. While climate change is changing the environment, a picture of a normal event is used to describe a new problem. It's that kind of slippery slope that we should avoid in photojournalism.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Alan, good example. Your example suggests, and I'm aware of several other recent examples, that news outlets are purposely misrepresenting what a photo is actually of.</p>

<p>And so as the thread goes on and more examples are given, we get further and further from Mr. Burke's original claim that the problem is <em>"Photoshop manipulated (sensationalized) so-called news pictures"</em>. And that's even if we substitute older post processing methods for Photoshop. No examples of the physical change to a photo in contemporary times has been given to show that that's a method being used in the systematic dissemination of propaganda or misinformation. <br /> <br /> It seems to me that Mr. Burke and Daniel Bayer are simply expressing their own preferences for non-post-processed photos (to the extent that's even possible). And I try to accept anyone's photographic and/or artistic preferences. But that preference really has nothing to do with truth, little if anything to do with political propaganda, and does not prevent any sort of fall onto the supposedly slippery slope toward Nazism or some other malignant political cancer.<br /> <br /> As for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope">SLIPPERY SLOPE</a> argument, as borne out by the Vietnam War (mentioned earlier in the thread), it's most often a fallacious argument based not on evidence but merely on imagination and worst-case scenario thinking. Europe and the world did not fall to communism even though we lost that war, and that was the doomsday scenario given as justification for that war. That the polar bear story will lead to more and more devious instances of that practice is not based on evidence. As a matter of fact, one could as easily make the case that the fact that the deception was discovered is just as likely to discourage others from trying it as to encourage others to deceive in even worse ways.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Which is why I argued that news outlets are not using the same high standards for words, articles and captions they publish as they do for photos they publish. </p>

<p>There's also a side element to this discussion where "truthful" pictures (and videos) can often make the truth more elusive as we have seen in recent cases where people have been injured or killed by cops. Interpretation of what you see, especially when videos and photos don't show the whole story, can be interpreted differently depending on which "truth" you wish to present. </p>

<p>Unfortunately the public busy with other more personal problems don;t have time to sort these things out and are often fooled by pictures, videos, the press, and others who purport to be telling the truth. However, we shouldn't complicate it further by accepting photojournalist's edits to match what they think is the truth.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. G...</p>

<p>“It seems to me that Mr. Burke and Daniel Bayer are simply expressing their own preferences for non-post-processed photos (to the extent that's even possible).” </p>

<p>Not speaking for Mr. Bayer, your statement is right on if you add the thought of limiting that preference to Photo Journalism. For art, fun, intellectual interest, etc., Photoshoping (generic term) is useful and has a legitimate place. </p>

<p>General comment...(not answering Mr. G.)</p>

<p>Another use of photo manipulation besides supposedly legitimate news sources and government mischief that I do not care for is advertising. This loooooooong yacht, now the Frances Amy B used to be the Christabel when I owned it (as a corporate asset) in the early 1980s. I know the current on-line advertising photo is not how it looks. So, I used Paint Shop Pro ver. 9 to shorten the .jpg. By golly, then it looked like it did when I owned it, surprise! I think I reduced it by about 30% to get it right. Yes, I realize in the pre-Photoshop days perspective printing was used to make those Cadillac class cars look a little longer and lower. Advertising artists had also been enhancing automotive reality since autos were first sold. </p>

<p>At the lease rates the boat goes for some stupid people must have gotten pretty rich. That ad has been there for years and so I doubt any customer has called them on it. The lessors know darn well they can get away with it. Truth in advertising is a mercantile concern. Still I don’t have to like it. </p>

<p>Here is the enhanced (only for artistic purposes naturally) advertising view: </p>

<p><a href="http://www.superyachtintelligence.com/fleetdata_image.html?SYNO=3001079">http://www.superyachtintelligence.com/fleetdata_image.html?SYNO=3001079</a> </p>

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

[DB_Gallery]

Huh,

 

I guess I need to re-think this a bit....based on the posts since my last: I should tell the 18 and 26 year old shooters who

came over to my home last night to develop tri-x and are working on great projects who I am mentoring to not bother,

because they are lying. I should delete the edit for the story about a statewide environmental issue I am working for the New York Times and tell

them we are BS-ing our selves and they should go into checkout line tabloid works. And I should tell the journalism

teacher at a prestigeous local but nationally known program that I will not be speaking at his student portfolio presentation

Tuesday morning because we are teaching people to strive for something has has never existed.

 

Gotcha....

 

Oh, and I guess I had better give Maggie Steber a big hug at Look3 in June as a matter of condolence in how she needs

help because what she said in the "Lens" article clearly demonstrates that all the hard work she had done over her

decades long career...is also a lie and her statement reflects that.

 

Golly....sure wish I was like some of you...all knowing, all seeing, near divine inspiration for works that somehow the world

has yet to put on a pedestal.

 

Better luck next life I guess!

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. G...</p>

<p>When I responded your post I did not mention the other two lines in the paragraph that named me and Mr. Bayer. So may I correct my replying post? </p>

<p>As to the part of that paragraph that reads “But that preference really has nothing to do with truth, little if anything to do with political propaganda, and does not prevent any sort of fall onto the supposedly slippery slope toward Nazism or some other malignant political cancer.”, I respectfully but totally disagree. </p>

<p>In the early 1960s my son was in college and needed three undergraduate “English” credits. Not into the English subject, he thought he would get the credits by taking a Journalism class. On the first day the professor stated something like----The purpose of Journalism is no longer to just report the facts but is to change public opinion. Furthermore anyone who would not accept that mission was to drop his class.--- My son did so and chose to take a dreaded regular English class. Good for him! </p>

<p>However, unfortunately we are now living with the work product of that generation’s Journalists. </p>

<p>Mr. Bayer...</p>

<p>No, please do not drop those young minds. Yours may be the only voice of dissent. Without your class participation they will never have the ability to choose between the two philosophies. Despite peer and professor pressure, a few might react to your teachings positively. </p>

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

[Supriyo]

<p>May I ask, what is the standard of "heavily photoshopped" in your opinion (all of you)? Is it simply adding some vignetting, perhaps some graduated color filter in photoshop? Or, is it something more extensive like taking the picture of a flower in harsh daylight, then replacing the background with artificial mist with (artificial) diffused sunlight, then adding an artificial reflection with ripples to create floating flower on a lake, all done in photoshop or other software?</p>

<p>At what point does a photograph cease to be one, and be appropriate to be called simply digital art? Where do we draw the fine line?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>On the first day the professor stated something like----The purpose of Journalism is no longer to just report the facts but is to change public opinion. Furthermore anyone who would not accept that mission was to drop his class.--- My son did so</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Too bad. Your son likely missed a great opportunity to learn. My experience in college and beyond was always to learn a lot from those with whom I disagreed rather than running away from them. Understanding their arguments and learning how best to refute them was very important to me. Actually, understanding their arguments BEFORE refuting them, in many cases, served me even better. <br /> <br /> You think, mistakenly, that the "two philosophies" being presented are 1) just reporting the facts or 2) changing public opinion. That's because you're wrongly convinced that your son's teacher's simplification of the problem (or your son's simplification of the teacher's thoughts) sums up what's been said in this thread and what can be said on the subject.<br /> <br /> I submit that the notion that Journalism (or any other means of communication) can "just report the facts" (without a particular perspective and without some bias) is naive at best. So all the gray areas within that assumption ought to be looked at and perhaps the class your son missed might have addressed that in some sophisticated way that would have been worth his hanging around, even if he ultimately might have come away disagreeing.<br /> <br /> I also submit that even if there could be a completely objective presentation of facts (perhaps accomplished with the omnipotent perspective of God but not as easily by man), the notion that this would not sway public opinion is also naive. Presentation of facts and a change in public opinion are not mutually exclusive. Any journalist ought to understand the power of her camera or pen.<br /> <br /> Part of the facts are what facts are shown. The picture of John John saluting his father's coffin was, indeed, a fact, one planned and created by his mother. And the facts of the time included his father's being a womanizer and philanderer. So, just how much TRUTH does that picture of John John show, which has become one of the icons of our visual historical lexicon?<br /> <br /> For every picture shown, a myriad of OTHER pictures are not. And those myriads represent other facts. A FACT is not a TRUTH. Truth is a much more complex notion than the mere accuracy of factual photo shooting, shooting which can be factual but severely limited at the same time. Isolated facts, which are often what accurate photos show, can be as misleading as any manipulated photo.<br /> <br /> I haven't heard anyone arguing, in this thread, in favor of a kind of journalism (such as the tabloid journalism you reference in a valiant straw man attempt) that purposely deceives or misleads. What's been questioned is how best to get to journalistic integrity (I think that's a better word than "truth" here) and whether it's such a given that post processing one's photos undermines that integrity.<br /> <br /> It makes it much easier to argue that you either have journalists presenting facts or journalists presenting the kinds of things the National Enquirer presents and then coming down on the side of the former. But simplifying the argument in that way avoids most of the important questions and a lot of things worth thinking about, things your son's professor might well have covered in his class. Professors often have to reduce their class descriptions to very simplistic terms. But, in a lot of cases, it's in the nuance of those arguments that the real thinking and learning takes place.</p>

[Supriyo]

I believe pure journalism should be about presenting clean true facts in a neutral way and then letting public opinion

take over. Any sort of "changing public opinion" sounds like manipulation to me. That's what many newspapers that are

inclined to one political ideology or the other do nowadays. They present preferential truth and suppress selective

information. I am not in favor of that kind of journalism.

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Bhattacharya... </p>

<p>Well said. </p>

<p>I like your term “preferential truth”. I think that term that would apply to the type of “knowledge” my boy would have gotten from the dropped Journalism class. </p>

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

 

[AlanKlein]

<p>The English language is clear if we stop trying to finesse it to justify our interpretations and actions. It's a simple thing you teach your kids. A lie is a lie. That applies to photos as well.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Klein...</p>

<p>Gotta like your statement! </p>

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

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>A lie is a lie.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>tautology:</em> a self-reinforcing pretense of significant truth.</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>Somehow I cannot bring my mind to imagine how interpretation of pure facts via post-processing can constitute good journalism. There obviously will be some reflection of the individual journalist's views in the reporting, that cannot be avoided. We are all human. However a true journalist must try to maintain neutrality as much as possible in what he/she reports. Otherwise it is a slippery slope. There is a place for personal opinions and interpretations in the editorials and opinion columns.</p>

<p>I did not understand fully Mr. Fred's example of a staged scene of a soldier paying respect to his father. If the scene is staged, then it is not journalistic. It could be a great piece of art. Manipulation is not necessarily limited to software post-processing. Any staging of a scene for journalistic purpose is manipulation as well.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Supriyo, my example was of John F. Kennedy Jr., at age 3, saluting the coffin of his father, John F. Kennedy (the assassinated President of the U.S.)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.famouspictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Jfkjrsalutes.jpg">Nov. 25th, 1963. Photo by Stan Stearns</a></p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"tautology: a self-reinforcing pretense of significant truth."</i>, such as: "tautology: a self-reinforcing pretense of significant truth."<br><br>But unlike "pure journalism", which can only exist openly acknowledging that there can be no reporting but that of someone's views on something.<br>Reporting with a pretense of reporting "pure fact" (the Real Truth as it is also known as) is as disingeneous as staging events and all that.