Fact and Fiction in Modern Photography

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Supriyo, you might find <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Fonda_2004_election_photo_controversy">THIS ENTRY</a> in Wikipedia interesting as relates to the John Kerry photo. That story is, first and foremost, about how the Internet can be used to manipulate group consciousness. I don't question that it is used that way. The photo was not manipulated by a journalist or a government like the one in Germany in the 1930s. In fact, the original journalist who took the picture of Kerry found the guy who had falsified it and was able to prove that it was a fake because he had the originals and others like it. So, in this case, it was the photojournalist who <em>uncovered</em> the fraud, not the photojournalist who <em>perpetrated</em> it.</p>

<p>I think your Lebanon photos link is a good example and appreciate your finding it. What that link also shows is how easy it is to manipulate by staging photos. I would put the blame on journalists who lack integrity rather than a piece of software. I grant you that it may be easier today to post process with nefarious intent. But I think it's a mistake to focus on the post processing angle instead of on the culture that creates an environment in which such falsehoods are perpetrated.</p>

<p>Donald, I don't really know what you mean by the burden of proof being solely up to the consumer. What burden of proof? What I'm suggesting is that we consumers of news and news photos would be smart to approach everything we see and hear from so-called news sources and, certainly, any and all claims of pure objectivity or neutrality, with a great deal of skepticism. That doesn't mean there aren't good editors and journalists doing their best. My claim would be that even the sources with the highest degree of integrity will wind up slanting the news one way or the other. It simply can't be helped. Are there varying degrees? Of course. But sometimes it's the most subtle and even the most unintentional slants that can be the most damaging, because they're so easily mistaken for honest and objective.</p>

[Supriyo]

Fred, I agree we should not blame the software, rather the human intent that is behind all the negative acts. I, myself use

photoshop in creatively enhancing my images.

 

Thank you for sharing the story behind the John Kerry example. That is not a proper example of political photo

manipulation by a journalist, I agree. Interestingly, NY Times published the doctored image and caused the unintended

political effect. Perhaps this shows that journalists need to be more vigilant about the authenticity of the images they use,

those that they gather from other sources.

[donald_miller5]

Forget that last bit about proof. I was referring to something I thought I read on this thread. It was late I must have read it

on some other thread because looking back I do not see it.

 

Anyway. Unfortunately this topic does not exist in a vacuum and there are so many other elements that help provide a

better perspective but to include them would probably draw this thread off topic and muddy the waters.

[AlanKlein]

<p>The problem is the general public is now accepting the doctoring of photos with nonchalance. I belong to a local photo club of mainly retired people, In conjunction with 5 other similar communities with thier clubs in our geographic area in New Jersey, we had a photo contest the other day. The judge who reviews and grades the entries made many references to improve the photos he was judging with comments like "you ought to clone this out or in". Discussing at my club meetings often review the tools available to change pictures, often substantially changing what the camera saw. Of course we weren't dealing with photojournalism but pictures mainly of an aesthetic value.</p>

<p>However, the point is that all these retired people for the most part just accept that editing pictures is an acceptable practice. And these are older people who shot with film for most of their earlier lives long before Photoshop. They pretty much printed or projected all their pictures with out-of-the camera shots. There's been a huge shift in people' s attitude regarding editing and its acceptability. Some of the shift has made it easier to accept edits of news photos unfortunately. Although, I still think that the majority of people are very nervous about edits in that area. There's still a big queasiness about it. </p>

[donald_miller5]

What I was referring to in my statement about proof was the comment about evidence of systematic patterns and also

about compilation of statistics. Photoshop provides very fertile ground and if we do not have the evidence the opportunity

is so great that the conversation is still relavant and important and if I was a betting I would gamble that when we look for

evidence we will find it. Seeing how accessible this is, it is hard not to be skeptical of news photos.

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p> it is hard not to be skeptical of news photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Donald, I think we are in agreement about being skeptical. I am reasonably skeptical of all news, articles, photos, and spoken accounts. We need only ask Brian Williams about that! I've been advocating a healthy skepticism about all news reporting, rather than emphasizing one process as if it were the main culprit. In today's world, we have stories taking hold on the Internet, passed along by sources such as the NY Times and the Washington Post and a myriad of others, without being verified, authenticated, or fact checked. In the race to get the story out and boost ratings, integrity often seems to go by the wayside. My own emphasis would tend to be on corporate greed, which is driving the dissemination of a lot of the info we get, not just news. The post processing of photos pales in comparison to the lies and half-truths and biases we get every minute of every day in blogs as well as cable news as well as network news. The only method I know to get at least a semblance of the overall picture is to read, listen to, and look at a variety of sources, those sources often having opposing agendas. Still, I'm never quite sure I'm getting anything close to the reality of the situations.</p>

[Brad_]

I worry more about the pre-processing of news photos. The yanking (pun intended) down of the giant Sadam Hussein

statue in 2003 at Firdos Square in Iraq comes to mind. I'm skeptical of all. Would liked to have seen a wider angle view of

the latest Time cover, but that would likely have diminished its power.

[donald_miller5]

<p>Never underestimate the power of a very large number of very stupid people. The NYT and Washington Post appear to be genuine and maintain journalistic integrity and their readers I would like to think are rather high minded. These don't worry me. What worries me are the target audiences for those with agendas. I have seen many manipulations of truths or outright lies that some people just want to believe. One of the curses of the internet is that it is easy for wingnuts to linked up with others of like mind (on the other hand it makes forums like this possible). Couple this ability to instantaneously distribute along with the ease to customize or manufacture photos the possibilities become mind boggling(even if far fetched). A lot of people still believe "pictures don't lie"</p>

<p>As an aside, this thread made me think of the restaging of raising the flag on Iwo Jima and the affect on the American psyche this iconic photo had.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>restaging of raising the flag on Iwo Jima</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To me, the Rosenthal photo and how it came about epitomize the power and mystique of photography, journalistic or otherwise. I don't think it's about restaging. I think it's about many things, including a lesser point about the often serendipitous way in which significant photos come about. At least in part, it's about a happy accident. The second raising was done for a specific purpose which didn't have to do with being staged for a photo. And Rosenthal, who had considered turning back, was simply heading up the mountain in hopes of taking a more posed group shot of the men who'd raised the first one and of other military goings on from a great vantage point. Instead, he got there just in time to take the famous picture he did. He originally wanted to get the lowering of the old flag and the raising of the new one in one shot. That proved impossible, and he realized he would only be able to get the raising of the new flag, and as the story goes he nearly missed that. As John Lennon famously said. "Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans." From my reading, Rosenthal's integrity remains perfectly in tact and the photo tells an important tale of the moment. In my mind, it's a photo that deserves all the love, respect, and acclaim it's gotten.</p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>Thanks, did not know that part of the story (just looked it up, interesting series of events). I wasn't thinking of the photographer so the was no questioning of his integrity. What I was considering was the power of this photo. It has stirred strong emotions since it was first released and the monuments based on it are quite common. It has been allowed to let people think this was the original raising and many did not or do not know this is the case. I do not know if the first would have been as stirring. We could start another thread on this as to why the misconceptions were allowed or encouraged and I was not attacking the photographer. Too bad the original raisers did not get the recognition that the second group got. If this happened by happened by happenstance it is not a big jump to recognize what could be done with staging or altering photos (I know, singing to the choir).</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes, Donald, for me, it's important to maintain the distinction between staging and altering a photo on the one hand and how a non-staged and non-altered photo can be used or misused or misunderstood or even downright lied about on the other hand. Honestly, for me, with this photo, it doesn't much matter whether the photo was of the first raising or the second. What matters is what the <em>photo</em> has to say, the life of the photo itself, not how it lines up with the moment in which it was taken. If we're concerned about photojournalistic accuracy then, yes, which raising it depicts would come into play. But it's also much more than that and those concerns for me pale in comparison to the document this photo leaves behind and all the things it represents, which go far beyond the particluar moment of its taking and far beyond which raising it is of. I think that's likely why those questions are not important to most people. While it makes for an interesting sidebar, the photo has meanings much deeper and more emotional than worrying about why there were two raisings and which was the more significant.</p>

<p>Actually, most of the accounts I've read do state the names of the soldiers who raised the first flag and I doubt most people could tell you any of the names of the first or second group. The photo's being iconic often means it transcends, at least to some extent, the particular individuals and makes a more universalized comment. The fact of the matter is that all those soldiers fought on that battlefield, whether they were among the first or second to raise the flag, as did the many who were doing other important things while the flag was being raised. The gestures of the first group are no more significant or worthy of historic document than the gestures of the second group and probably not that much more important than the private who might have been cleaning a latrine at the time, which actually, in the right hands, might have made just as good a photo. My hope is that all the soldiers, themselves, feel a brotherhood and bond and aren't worried about competing for credit and aren't invested in a picture for whatever feelings they have about what they did in Japan.</p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>Fred<br>

No argument at all with what you say about this particular photo. I now know the use of the term "restaging" was inaccurate and wrong. I cited this photo also as an example of the impact an image could have because it was so effective, not to take anything from what you said. What you said about this particular photo is true but it also eloquently states my point about the power of an image and the potential of images under different circumstances.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>The flag was raised early in the battle for Iwo Jima. Many of the raisers of the famous second flag were killed in battle on that island within days or weeks. Don't know what happened with the soldiers of the first flag but I assume their fate was terminal for many of them as well.</p>

<p>The second raising was not staged although there were a lot of erroneous claims that it was staged. The military decided to have a second flag raised. But the photographer did not stage it. It was an honest photo he caught off-hand. <br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima</p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>Just found this. Yevgeny Khaldei shot a photo that depicts the Soviet army raising their flag in Berlin. He was inspired by Rosenthal's photo. This time it was staged and altered. This is more to what I was speaking to. Note the sentence about the watch, small subtle changes to promote image. Again, not attacking the photographer, he had no choice considering the constraints and regime he was working under. The ease of how easy it was to fall into disfavor the during great terror fresh in his mind (even Molotov's wife fell victim later on for speaking to Golda Meir in Hebrew). The issue is not about the photographer per se but the use of altered images in my mind.<br>

From Wikipedia</p>

<h2 >Works[<a title="Edit section: Works" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yevgeny_Khaldei&action=edit&section=2">edit</a>]</h2>

<p >Khaldei's most renowned photographs were taken when he was a Red Army photographer from 1941 to 1946. Khaldei's photographs emphasised his feelings for the historic moments and his sense of humour. One of the more famous anecdotes was during the Nuremberg Trials, where <a title="Hermann Göring" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring">Hermann Göring</a> was being tried. Khaldei says about the Göring shot:</p>

<blockquote >

<p >When we received orders to leave Nuremberg, I asked an American colleague to photograph me with Göring. Göring remembered that, because of me, he had been hit with a club, and hence he always turned his head aside when I came into the courtroom. When he noticed I wanted to get into the picture with him, he put down his hand in front of his face.</p>

—Khaldei

</blockquote>

<p ><sup >[<em><a title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed">citation needed</a></em>]</sup></p>

<p >While Khaldei frequently staged or manipulated his photographs, he insisted that this was to signify the importance and add strength to a particular event. His work was also admired by the elites of the Soviet Union and he is renowned for creating commissioned portraits for State leaders such as <a title="Joseph Stalin" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin">Joseph Stalin</a>, <a title="Mikhail Gorbachev" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev">Mikhail Gorbachev</a> and <a title="Boris Yeltsin" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsin">Boris Yeltsin</a>.<sup >[<em><a title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed">citation needed</a></em>]</sup></p>

<h3 >Red Army Reichstag photo[<a title="Edit section: Red Army Reichstag photo" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yevgeny_Khaldei&action=edit&section=3">edit</a>]</h3>

Main article: <a title="Raising a flag over the Reichstag" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_a_flag_over_the_Reichstag">Raising a flag over the Reichstag</a>

<p >Khaldei's most famous photo was of a <a title="Red Army" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army">Red Army</a> soldier <a title="Raising a flag over the Reichstag" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_a_flag_over_the_Reichstag">raising a Soviet flag above the German Reichstag</a> at the end of World War II: the historic defeat of Nazi Germany in a war that cost the Soviet Union twenty millions lives; the magazine <em><a title="Ogoniok" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogoniok">Ogoniok</a></em> published the photograph on 13 May 1945.<sup id="cite_ref-Sontheimer2008-07-05_1-1" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Khaldei#cite_note-Sontheimer2008-07-05-1">[1]</a></sup> Khaldei had shot an entire roll of film, 36 images. One shot, along with some of its very similar versions, became the most iconic of the event (<a title="The Times" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times">The Times</a> identified one such version). The photograph is showing an adolescent Red Army soldier, <a title="Aleksei Kovalyev (page does not exist)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aleksei_Kovalyev&action=edit&redlink=1">Aleksei Kovalyev</a> from <a title="Kiev" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev">Kiev</a>, attaching the Soviet flag to the roof of the Reichstag, assisted by two other soldiers, Aleksei Goryachev (or rather Leonid Gorychev, depending on the source) from <a title="Minsk" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk">Minsk</a> and <a title="Abdulkhakim Ismailov" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulkhakim_Ismailov">Abdulkhakim Ismailov</a> from <a title="Dagestan" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagestan">Dagestan</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-Halpin2010-02-18_8-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Khaldei#cite_note-Halpin2010-02-18-8">[8]</a></sup> Khaldei altered the photograph before publication, to hide evidence of looting (one soldier was wearing two watches, one on each wrist), later also adding smoke in the sky and a more visually impressive version of the flag.<sup id="cite_ref-Sontheimer2008-07-05_1-2" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Khaldei#cite_note-Sontheimer2008-07-05-1">[1]</a></sup> The official Soviet version of the story names the two better visible soldiers as <a title="Meliton Kantaria" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meliton_Kantaria">Meliton Kantaria</a>, thus a Georgian fellow countryman of Stalin's, and the Russian <a title="M. A. Yegorov" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._A._Yegorov">Mikhail Yegorov</a>, instead of the actual three - a Ukrainian, a Belarusian and a Dagestani - probably for the obvious reasons.<sup id="cite_ref-Lucas2010-02-28_9-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Khaldei#cite_note-Lucas2010-02-28-9">[9]</a></sup> Ismailov's role in the photograph was identified by Kovalyev in a 1995 television documentary;<sup id="cite_ref-Halpin2010-02-18_8-1" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Khaldei#cite_note-Halpin2010-02-18-8">[8]</a></sup> the following year, <a title="President of Russia" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Russia">President</a> Boris Yeltsin honored Ismailov as a <a title="Hero of Russia" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Russia">Hero of Russia</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-Halpin2010-02-18_8-2" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Khaldei#cite_note-Halpin2010-02-18-8">[8]</a></sup></p>

<p >The celebrated image is a re-enactment of an earlier flag-raising of which no photograph was taken, as it happened at 10:40 p.m. on 30 April 1945 while the building was actually still held by German troops. A group of four Soviet soldiers fought their way to the roof, where 23-year-old private <a title="Mikhail Minin" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Minin">Mikhail Minin</a> climbed up on an <a title="Equestrian statue" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrian_statue">equestrian statue</a> representing Germany, to fasten an improvised flagpole to its crown. As that occurred at night and under fire, no photo could be taken. The next day Nazi snipers shot down the flag. The surrender of the Reichstag came on 2 May 1945, and only after that did Khaldei scale the building along with the three soldiers which he had picked up randomly on his way. He was carrying with him a large flag sewn from three tablecloths by his uncle for this very purpose. The seams are indeed visible on the picture. More details at <em><a title="Raising a flag over the Reichstag" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_a_flag_over_the_Reichstag">Raising a flag over the Reichstag</a></em>.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Staging (like art), traditional manipulation or Photoshop-like digital manipulation, are all perhaps overshadowed as deceivers of or contributors to truth by the nature of the photograph itself. That dilemna includes amongst other aspects:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>It's mysteriousness (what really is being photographed, what is being portrayed, what do we see within the photo or not?)</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>It's instantaneousness - try stopping the recording feature of your TV recorder and notice how uncharacteristic the faces of the persons being viewed then become. Often unrecognizable in many ways. The instant, say 1/30th of a second tells us little about what happened in the same slice of time before or after, or indeed in the seconds or minutes so distributed about the moment of capture. Why should the instantaneous capture offer more truth than an image manipulated to underscore some aspect of that truth or reality?</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>The photographer's artistic or journalistic biases: Angle of view, what to privilege in the composition, lighting, DOF and other considerations can each emphasize or deemphasize some aspects of what was really there.</li>

</ul>

<p>What I would like to add here after enjoying the active preceding discussion that I unfortunately missed, is a suggestion to not require of photography (or the essay writer) more reality than that of which the medium is capable. It should best be used by yourself or by a recorder of events (photojournalist, other) to pass your message or thoughts about what your subject or perception of it means, which if placed into context can be some aspect of reality or truth in itself.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>A still image is frozen moment in time it does not give you the before or the after. It gives you what it is a frozen moment in time......anything else is pure conjecture as you can understand from the multiple posts above....</p>

<p>A speculation and a guessing game. </p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>My sentiments exactly. What is the difference between how one frames and composes a journalistic photo and how one composes an article. But there is a line to be drawn like when the facts in an article are distorted, invented or when the writer lies about his own involvement and similarly a photo is altered after the fact.<br>

Sometimes the photo is altered so subtly that no one would not notice or look for. For instance the elimination of watches in the photo mentioned above. Many years from now no one would think of this or know why but it is still a misrepresentation with an agenda. <br>

(soviets had this thing about watches. I bought quite a few Russian watches on line and many Russians ((including a jeweler))said to me " you know probably all of these were stolen off of drunks on the street or by police who arrested drunks")</p>

 

 

 

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Understand what a photograph is and the limitations of the craft/art....a little moment in time which can be manipulation to tell a story by the photographer, any story ; we/you only look at a image which is subject to conjecture.</p>

<p>And individual interpretation.</p><div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Do we really know what he is thinking?</p>

<p>No, just a moment in time we can speculate about. </p>

<p>Where is the truth? Not in the photograph...or, maybe. A guessing game.</p>

 

[donald_miller5]

<p>The trick is to pick through it and resolve the variables and realize what we know, what we know we do not know and the element of what we do not know what we do not know. Two analogies come to mind.<br>

1. A cop sees a drunk crawling around a lamp post. The cop asks what he is doing and the drunk replies I lost my keys. The officer asks where he lost his keys. The drunk says down the road to which the officer asks why he is looking here. The drunk responds this is whjere the light is.<br>

2.we have to careful not to use a photo like a drunk uses a lamp post, more for support than illumination.</p>

[mariejustice]

I will go with aplumpton, because his points are valid.