National Geographic Editor: "...it’s never OK to alter a photo."

[AlanKlein]

<p>Getting back to what I believe to be the true elephant in the room. That is the very act of modifying pictures in a computer vs. "true" photography. </p>

<p>I'll get flack for saying this. But when I leard that a photo has the sky from one picture cloned on to the landscape of another, I lose total interest in the photo and consider it a fraud. Photos aren't paintings where we understand the the artist's brain is filtering the image. The photo still represents or should in my mind what was there when the shutter was snapped. An instance in time. One day and we're almost there, we'll be able to click on a whole set of pictures and click sky from one, earth from another, time of day from another, and make a compositre picture all in a computer without ever leaving our desk. That isn't photography, that's computer art. We still confuse the two unfortunately. </p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Fred, I have to agree about the larger issue of bias. Bad enough that I can't watch<em> any</em> television news with a straight face, but my once beloved Los Angeles Times-- which for a while there was picking up Pulitzer after Pulitzer for photography-- is now pretty much in ruins since Tribune bought it and gutted it.<br>

But the presence of the larger issue does not negate the necessity of simply never altering photos beyond simple adjustments that could be done in a darkroom. That, for me, is the absolute minimum of diligence that is due. We can't just say, "to hell with everything because there's bigger fish to fry."</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't understand your point.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. You don't understand my point.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are you saying that because some or even a lot of media is biased, or that readers themselves are biased, then it's Ok for a news outlet that purports to be telling the truth, to continue the ruse and deceive us further instead of trying to be objective?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am NOT saying that.<br>

<br>

Here are two things I've said that you may have missed:<br>

<br>

<em>"I'm all for having journalistic standards that don't allow cloning. But that's just a bare beginning."</em> —Fred</p>

<p><em>"Disallowing cloning, as I said, is just a beginning."</em> —Fred</p>

<p> <br>

I don't know how much more clear I can be, but you have to show some willingness to read and understand me. I'll say again: I'm all for rules against cloning and rules against selective manipulation of photos in a journalistic context. <br>

<br>

At the same time, I'm aware that this can be and is being used as a smokescreen by corporations that are directing our attention to such photographic manipulation "misdeeds" as the culprit, when the larger culprit is that editors are paid for by corporations who have interests in only reporting certain stories and in suppressing others and only showing certain sides of stories, and that they have developed excellent means of doing all that without the need for cloning. <br>

<br>

It's a matter of emphasis. The NG spokesperson draws our attention to her high standards on CLONING as a way to distract us from where the more egregious compromises of objectivity are taking place.</p>

[AlanKlein]

Well I'm glad you agree that deception in photos isn't

right. Sorry I misunderstood your point.

[a._t._burke]

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

<p>I think I see your point. If I'm right, you can improve the average by conscientiously being unbiased yourself. Yes, perhaps nobody is perfect and there will be slip-ups. However some real effort in that area by us terrible Americans would help the situation. For you, like charity, it could begin at home. </p>

<p>Now as to the media… They get so much better ratings by being biased and abrasive as well as feeling the joy of venting their particular spleen that I think they will not reverse course. <br>

A. T. Burke</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>For you, like charity, it could begin at home.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A.T., I agree. It does. I'm always trying to improve but I'm pretty comfortable with my own approach to lack of bias when it comes to news. I start by getting my news from a variety of different sources. I try to use what I consider reputable news sources. I also try to keep up with both conservative and liberal "news" sources, from the less to the more extreme on both sides. <br>

<br>

I also try to do my best to recognize and maintain awareness of my own biases. If you have something specific in mind with regard to a bias I've exhibited here and a coherent reason why it's important for me, in particular, to begin looking for bias at home, please specify. Otherwise, I'll just take your comment as a platitude and cheap shot.<br>

<br>

Our own biases are one thing. Biases of the "news" outlets themselves is harder to deal with and will require concerted effort on the part of many people to rectify.</p>

<p>It's possible that there is no economic motive resulting in bias as I've suggested and, A.T., if you have information to the contrary, I will remain open to seeing such evidence and adjusting my views based on what you might provide.</p>

[a._t._burke]

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

<br /> "I also try to do my best to recognize and maintain awareness of my own biases. If you have something specific in mind with regard to a bias I've exhibited here and a coherent reason why it's important for me, in particular, to begin looking for bias at home, please specify. Otherwise, I'll just take your comment as a platitude and cheap shot."</p>

<p><br /> My comment was neither a pat on the back nor a shot at you. I thought I got your drift (although it was a bit obscure) and that as the great-unwashed public, we could do something about it. Since you made the point I mentioned you. Since that was not clear might I now expand to say you (the point maker), and I, and those others that might see a need for improvement, can all take a shot at doing something positive. We are not helpless and can upgrade the situation especially if we start at home (for the compressively impaired, that means ourselves).</p>

<p><br /> Now, I remain thinking the media will not. From their commercial position and power to persuade points of view, they most likely do not see a change as being in their best interest and the hell with us.</p>

<p><br /> “It's possible that there is no economic motive resulting in bias as I've suggested and, A.T., if you have information to the contrary, I will remain open to seeing such evidence and adjusting my views based on what you might provide.”</p>

<p><br /> OK.</p>

<p><br /> 1. Look at the so-called news media. I feel some is biased to the left and some to the right. I have watched news with folks of both types of views. Those folks that I’d consider liberal like to have their bias reinforced by the liberal media. Conversely they will again cover the same territory on a conservative show. Then they delight in scoffing, cursing and getting negatively emotional. Folks with conservative views do the same thing, but just in reverse. That old ad money just keeps rolling in as they watch and emote to both sides.<br>

<br /> 2. Good ol’ Rush. I retired in 1988 and started spending 600-mile travel days, often in remote areas where one could only get those “big midwestern broadcasters.” Rush was starting to get big and occupied some of the time. He often claimed things happened that day that I had not heard on the regular "all-encompassing, totally honest?" network news. He also often gave a much different set of facts for an incident that had been described on network news. My destination was often the Canadian border, where I could pick up Canadian television and broadcast radio. There, the Rush-announced, but otherwise broadcast-absent news would be delivered. Who was right? Often the Canadian news included a video or still shot which I considered a more believable recounting. Also, if there was a large discrepancy in the facts (not opinions) between major U.S. news broadcasters and Rush, the Canadian stations either proved, through visual media, or coincided with audio media that which Rush had said.</p>

<p><br /> Then he became a blowhard junkie. He could repeat, “I’m right, I’m right” continually for over sixty seconds at a time. His comments, which didn’t exactly begin to the left of center, started sounding like a rather stoned imaginary series of events. His ratings shot up, his income shot up, his popularity shot up, the amount of stations carrying him shot up. Then he got caught. Oppressed by sobriety and less delusional than before (but still a little exaggerating), his time of more moderate views coincided with a big drop in ratings, station coverage, etc., etc.</p>

<p><br /> I’m old, I’m tired, and if my arguments have not been convincing, I just don’t have the energy to expand.</p>

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

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>A.T., I appreciate and understand the evidence you've provided. It's not exactly what I was asking for. We agree on the fact that money is involved and it will be hard to change that. In order not to be accused of having a bias, I was asking if you had evidence that money is NOT involved. I was thinking there would be no evidence of that and wanted to make sure that was a reasoned and researched matter on my account and not a bias. </p>

<p>I think we agree on the basics. I appreciate having been able to clarify that.</p>

<p>One caution, again not to you specifically but to all of us, is not to let this idea of personal or cultural bias get in the way of data, research, and reasoning. When we talk about big issues, and I don't want to name any because we could get too involved in specific politics which should be avoided here, we shouldn't confuse all opinions and beliefs with bias. Bias suggests a predisposition and uninformed belief. Informed beliefs, based on sound reasoning, data, and research should never be confused with biases, which are a different matter.</p>

<p>Same with photos. Just because some photos have been manipulated to deceive doesn't mean all photos that are manipulated are done with the intention of deceiving. Just because some photos that come straight out of the camera convey an objective view of the scene doesn't mean all photos that come straight out of the camera do so. I think discernment has to come into play in a lot of our reasoning about what's presented in any given photo.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. G…<br>

<br>

Yes, I must have misread that, so now I’ll respond to no money. <br>

<br>

That journalism teacher I mentioned before would be an example. He was attempting to get us students to bias the news to champion a social/political viewpoint. He made no bones about what his viewpoint was. Society has changed, but in the mid-1960s, it would be what most people would have considered extremely far to the left. Among some of the specific issues where he wanted a liberal viewpoint were such things as anti-gun, pro-abortion, anti-war, etc. This was the Vietnam era and he was very big on anti-war. <br>

<br>

Of course, many people thought then, and would be thinking while reading this, “of course, that’s the only right way to think.” Anything else is bad, foolish, hateful, etc., etc. <br>

<br>

I saw no particular monetary profit in an anti-war stance, at least not for the media per se. Perhaps it would have encouraged more readership or viewership from that political bent, but would have discouraged it from the other. At the time of that class, statistically the majority opinion probably supported the war. So a newspaper or station that took on a strong anti-war bias might pay for it at the cash register. Some years later, the reverse would probably be true and perhaps it would profit them. However, at the time, I don’t think the Professor’s stance was for monetary profit, but was for the purpose of political proselytizing, as well as the satisfaction of making other people see it his way (the one and only right way), even if by deception. <br>

<br>

As an aside, had his gist of political persuasion been to the ultra-conservative side, or with any other purpose of deception, I would have dropped the class just as fast. I might not have been in total agreement with his politics, but if he hadn’t insisted upon deception, I would have continued on and maybe enjoyed learning some journalistic skills, which might have helped me with some of my business endeavors like marketing or salesmanship. In my life, I’ve learned a lot from people with an opposite opinion. The only thing I’ve learned from liars, cheats, and deceivers is to keep one hand on my wallet and the other on my zipper. <br>

<br>

Going off watch, <br /><br>

<br>

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

[AlanKlein]

<p>Relativism. The new religion. Left is right, up is down, lies are truth. We live on shifting sands not knowing where we are or where we're going.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Same with photos. Just because some photos have been manipulated to deceive doesn't mean all photos that are manipulated are done with the intention of deceiving". Fred.</p>

<p>Indeed, so best not to manipulate to avoid deception in photojournalism.</p>

<p>"Just because some photos that come straight out of the camera convey an objective view of the scene doesn't mean all photos that come straight out of the camera do so". Fred.</p>

<p>A straw man argument.based on artistic impressionism..</p>

<p>Just because we have pedestrian crossings does not mean some folk will not be run over. Better not to have pedestrian crossings because some folk will still be run over.</p>

<p> </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I tend to agree with Allen H. However, people are going to vote/voice with their money. Think McCurry a fraud (for instance), stop buying his photos, or praising him. There is a fine line for everyone and the fine line surely is different for different folks...</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Photojournalism is one thing only. Your NG article is fine for NG or any newspaper, as you know there are industry ethics and standards with regards the altering of photographs for journalism. But other than that, who cares? There have been several posts on this general topic and I've seen nothing new, convincing or compelling that hasn't been said at least 3 times now. </p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>It's twice, Barry-- once when McCurry's photos were noticed, and this editorial, which has new information, namely a statement from the NG editor. If this editorial was posted at the bottom of the McCurry post, those who <em>are</em> interested may not have seen it. <br /><br />Sorry to disturb you enough to comment, but photojournalism/ethics is on topic for this site and this forum. Just ignore it if it bothers you.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Its not photojournalism/ethics. Its the ethics of photojournalism and has nothing to do with any other form or purpose of photography. OP, do you agree with that or are you promoting a viewpoint that altering/improving a photograph is always bad?</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Actually, I think this the third time, I think there was another one in there, but no matter, and I realize the NG article is another opinion article weighing in on the "issue". I would echo what Dave H. said just above.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>This is about the practice and ethical standards of photojournalism. <br />I don't know where you would get the idea from anything posted above that it was about any other field of photography.<br /><br />On the other hand, as I mentioned last time this came up, there are other fields of photography that have similar standards, like photographing an animal in a zoo and calling it a nature photograph. <br /><br />But that's not my concern here. This post was specifically about purposefully changing the content of a photograph beyond what what was normally done in darkrooms like esthetic adjustments for exposure, white balance, minor crops, dodging, and burning. <br /><br />For example, not correcting something like white balance would make the photography less representative of what the camera saw, not more. This is all pretty much common sense, in my opinion. Hard to believe we actually have to hash this stuff out. </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>The reason why we need to keep going through it is because people make posts where the extent of the assertion , or agreement to an assertion is unclear. Your original quotes "its never OK to alter a photo" and speaks of the "Issue of altered photographs" - not the just alteration of photographs used in photojournalism. Further you asserted your agreement with these under-qualified sentiments. </p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>The article is by the National Geographic Editor in Chief, about content in National Geographic, specifically cloning and extraordinary manipulations. Context is everything. Next time, maybe read the article before commenting.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I read the article and still felt the need to comment. </p>

[Damon DAmato]

<blockquote>

<p>So it's ok to make the pyramids appear to be closer together than they actually are by changing the perspective by moving around, or by changing the lens. It's not ok to make them look closer together through post processing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, exactly that. That's what this is about-- changing pyramids. Not a matter of journalistic integrity. Thank you for settling this. /sarcasm</p>