Article from 1984 discussing the impact of computers on photography

[movingfinger]

Knowing what we know now about how photography has evolved in the digital age it interesting to look back and be reminded (for those of us who were alive back then) or to be introduced to how it was perceived and what was predicted back in the early years. Here is an NYT Mag article from 1984, Photography's New Bag of Tricks. 

I was surprised to see in the article that National Geographic Magazine digitally altered a cover photograph in 1982. I had always considered NGM a stickler for unaltered photography. If you don't read the article here's the section about NGM cover:

Quote

In the meantime, publications have begun to use computerized compositing and manipulation of photographs. A horizontal photograph of camels crossing in front of the Pyramids of Giza was altered by computer to make it fit more easily onto the cover of the February 1982 National Geographic magazine. One pyramid was shifted closer to another in the photograph. Wilbur E. Garrett, the Geographic's editor, defends the modification, seeing it not as a falsification but merely the establishment of a new point of view, as if the photographer had been retroactively moved a few feet to one side.

 

[samstevens]

I’ll just address part of the quote you provided …

Quote

defends the modification, seeing it not as a falsification but merely the establishment of a new point of view

That’s a reasonable way to look at it, especially considering there was probably no malicious intent in making what appears to be a benign change to the original photo. But, there are journalistic and nature photography standard practices for a reason. As they say, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”  And so, nobody can foresee all the potential problems and unforeseeable *falsehoods* that could result from a well-intentioned change like this. And, the next guy might assume his change to a nature or journalistic photo was really just a change in “point of view” and carry it just a hair further. And, once the practice is tacitly accepted, those with less than honorable intentions will be that much more empowered to ply their trade as well. And those more innocent and with less ability to foresee that the change they’re going to make may actually portray a falsehood will also be left to their own devices rather than adhering to an imposed standard. Much better, I think, to stick to objective standards that don’t rely on different perspectives to interpret what is “falsification” and what is “the establishment of a new point of view”. Since it would be hard to draw an exact line of distinction between those two, the line was, I think, rightly drawn procedurally rather than interpretively.

[inoneeye]

Interesting to read in articles that readers had notice the inaccuracy of the spatial distancing even before the photographer objected to the manipulation.
And then it was discovered that the photographer had set up and paid the riders to get the image he wanted. For NGM this seemed inappropriate as they later acknowledged and then established strict guidelines for unaltered photos. But they backtracked on their own guidelines with a notable image for BLM movement by Kris Graves for the 2021 year in pictures cover by removing graffiti swear words. Again well intentioned  allowing a great photo to make it to the cover.

I would prefer that this was not the trend in journalism. But it is and it erodes my visual trust in photo journalism.

Edited June 4, 2023 by inoneeye

[movingfinger]

1 hour ago, inoneeye said:

But they backtracked on their own guidelines with a notable image for BLM movement by Kris Graves for the 2021 year in pictures cover by removing graffiti swear words. Again well intentioned  allowing a great photo to make it to the cover.

 

I tried to find more information regarding this alteration but did not come across any (not that I looked all that hard). I did find the cover photograph and it was good although to me it had an HDR look that made it appear almost artificial. In any case, I don't think I agree with you. If the "great photo" as taken could not to be on the cover for whatever reason, then sorry but it shouldn't be on the cover. Could it have been on the inside, unaltered with the swear words? I guess the "well intentioned" was to get a dramatic saturated color photograph relating to BLM on the cover that displayed the artistry and good intentions of the BLM protesters. 

[inoneeye]

Perhaps the hdr look was due to the fact that the Floyd image is projected on to the statue at night giving the unnatural appearance. And agreed it should have been used intact or not at all.

[samstevens]

2 hours ago, movingfinger said:

that displayed the artistry and good intentions of the BLM protesters

That may or may not have been NG's intention. I, too, wish they hadn't felt the need to remove swear words from what was obviously a documentary photo. But what their intentions were in posting the photo itself ... how would I know? I imagine there were a wide range of intentions and reasons to use the photo. 

A short article I found from Purchase College suggests that the photo was from a project Graves was doing on the removal of confederate statues throughout the south. NG chose this for the cover of their Year in Pictures edition. To me, it seems like an appropriate photo for them to use (though not once it was altered) and its content covers a lot of ground. Whether NG thinks BLM has good intentions or artistry might come through in their accompanying text but doesn't come through to me in the choice itself any more than if, back in the 1930s, they had chosen a powerful photo of the Reichstag for their cover. That wouldn't suggest to me they thought the Nazis had good intentions.

A strong photo is a strong photo and what it represents may be both obvious and not so obvious and may also be in the eye of the beholder. Some photo choices represent the magnitude of a symbol without necessarily promoting or advocating for that symbol.

I've used the cross in a few of my own photos. It's a rich and powerful symbol with a lot of meaning and emotion behind it. But my use of it doesn't say anything about my belief in the religion it represents.

Someone could very well have taken and could very well use the NG photo who thought what BLM was doing was a defacement of treasured icons (remembering that our world is currently upside down in so many ways) and, shown to the right audience of modern day confederates, might whip them up into a frenzy of anti-"wokism". 

Photos do have power, in and of themselves. But we also give them power, sometimes in very different ways depending on who's doing the choosing and the looking.

 

[Allen Herbert]

"In the meantime, publications have begun to use computerized compositing and manipulation of photograph's" moving fingers."

There you go ,manipulation, to improve a crap photo to lesser crap.

Really, get out there real world, and take real photos. Real photography does not need anything they stand alone. 

The 50 best photographers ever | Digital Camera World

Edited June 5, 2023 by Allen Herbert

[Allen Herbert]

You just have to....look.

[glen_h]

Since the analog days, we had cropping, dodging, and variable contrast paper.

As well as I know, those were generally allowed.

 

I suspect one could cover up swear words and racial slurs with dodging. 

While my choice would be to keep them, many don't want kids to see them,

and some words not even adults.

 

Without seeing the camels, I am not sure what to say about it.

 

[za33photo]

3 hours ago, glen_h said:

Since the analog days, we had cropping, dodging, and variable contrast paper.

As well as I know, those were generally allowed.

 

I suspect one could cover up swear words and racial slurs with dodging. 

While my choice would be to keep them, many don't want kids to see them,

and some words not even adults.

 

Without seeing the camels, I am not sure what to say about it.

 

Nanny knows best , hide the real world from the impressionables.

"Factual" photojournalism , hmmmmm-----😇.

 

[Allen Herbert]

"Since the analog days, we had cropping, dodging, and variable contrast paper.

As well as I know, those were generally allowed"

Do what you want sunshine never as yet found a rule book on photography.

I suppose some folks like to sit in front of a computer creating images. Some like to go out in the world finding images. Everyone to their own.

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Allen Herbert

[glen_h]

I was thinking last night, about how tired I was hearing about Ron De Sanctimonious.

There is probably technology now that could replace it, in close to real time, with

his real name.  

 

And then immediately wondered about what rule for reporting would

be against that, and remembered this discussion.

 

As far as the one above, I suspect that I am for reporting swear words

as they are, but I suspect that the N word doesn't get through, even for

adult viewers.

 

There was news yesterday, that Apple's spell correction will now stop correcting

into "duckers", and I presume also "duck", from similar sounding words.

Edited June 8, 2023 by glen_h

[Allen Herbert]

[Ricochetrider]

Hmmm... This feels very similar to current conversations about AI.

Although, while I'm not one to want to alter (beyond minor enhancements of perhaps light and color) or certainly not falsify any photos, the thing that bugs me the most about doing so in today's climate of degradation of trust in news reporting, is that such action does more harm than good. Super surprising that NG, of all publications, would resort to these tactics. 

Meanwhile, good for people to see the even slight shift in the position of the pyramids in the original article's photos! It goes to show that nothing escapes a keen eye- which all by itself feels like a good enough reason to uphold truth in journalism if not everywhere.   

[samstevens]

Quote

Truth should be their idol, their first and last consideration always, for unless truth is the leading characteristic of the newspaper press, it cannot be morally useful and beneficial, but pernicious and hurtful.
—Scientific American

Quote

We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince other of the truthfulness of his lies.
—Pablo Picasso

Who's making the photo, for what purpose, and in what context?

[movingfinger]

10 hours ago, Ricochetrider said:

Hmmm... This feels very similar to current conversations about AI.

Yes the discussion after the original post has gone way in that direction (although no one mentioned photoshops new "generative fill" so far). I started the thread only to point out an article written back in the 80's when digital was in its early infancy for people to read and see what was originally envisioned - at least by some folks - and to compare to what the reality is today. It is always fun to compare predictions of the future with the actual ensuing reality. NGs mild, innocent, tweak from back then shows their underestimation of just how pernicious and serious digital 'tweaks' could and would become (did I mention photoshop's "generative fill"?). 

Oh well, we all must play the hand we're dealt when we are dealt it and play it to our own standards. I don't see any absolute right or wrong in this matter, even for documentary and/or journalistic photography - my key escape adjective here being 'absolute'. 

[inoneeye]

from the article;

-"What is disquieting about the new technology is that its effectiveness, both in compositing and synthesizing photographs, may lead to dangerous deceptions, such as a supposed meeting of Kennedy and Castro. Realistic-looking photographic images, now prized for their veracity, may be harder to trust. If their contents can be easily fabricated - or altered - by computer, then the traditional acceptance of journalistic photographs and film as having been recorded from life may be difficult to sustain."

-"In the not-too-distant future, realistic-looking images will probably have to be labeled, like words, as either fiction or nonfiction, because it may be impossible to tell them apart. We may have to rely on the image maker, and not the image, to tell us into which category certain pictures fall."

-"Of course, computers or electronic cameras are not in themselves a danger; it is their potential misuse when applied to journalistic images that is a source of concern."

The article ends on a positive prediction;
"David Em, an artist well known for work using the computer, predicts the future of computer-generated imagery this way: ''As you have kids that are growing up with video games and growing up computer literate, 15 years from now the true Michelangelos and Leonardos of the medium will come about to blow us all away. And we just have to realize that these are the Paleolithic days of the computer medium.''"

Edited June 18, 2023 by inoneeye

[Allen Herbert]

 "15 years from now the true Michelangelo's and Leonardo's of the medium will come about to blow us all away. And we just have to realize that these are the Paleolithic days of the computer medium.''"inoneeye

Yes, blow us away creating pretty pictures on a computer screen. Sad or what.

Hello, there's a real world out there. Try engaging with it because that it what photography is about. 

"David Em, an artist well known for work using the computer, predicts the future of computer-generated imagery this way: 

Some bloke trying to turn a coin little else. Hey, you cannot blame him the world is full of mugs.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Allen Herbert

[Allen Herbert]

"Who's making the photo, for what purpose, and in what context? Inoneeye

How about there's no purpose or a need for context. How about just for the joy of photographing the world as we see it. 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2023 by Allen Herbert

[Allen Herbert]

[inoneeye]

On 6/24/2023 at 11:57 AM, Allen Herbert said:

 

"Who's making the photo, for what purpose, and in what context? Inoneeye

How about there's no purpose or a need for context. How about just for the joy of photographing the world as we see it. 

 

Sure Allen why not.
But the quote you mistakenly attributed to me was then used out of the context it was said. 
Wish-full thinking 🤔.  I think photojournalism is served best by being held and accountable to traditionally established ethics of using unaltered images. imo that includes limiting some ‘basic’ over manipulation such as contrast, dodging, burning etc….IF doing so alters the image for the purpose of changing the “truth” accuracy and objectivity of the photo. The 1994 Time magazine OJ mugshot cover comes to mind…. bias. A case that falls in the lap of the editor? It often comes down on the editor not the photographer.

The door is wide open for any artist to manipulate their photos any way and means they choose. 

On 6/17/2023 at 9:12 AM, samstevens said:

to convince other(s) of the truthfulness of his lies.
—Pablo Picasso

 

Edited June 25, 2023 by inoneeye

[samstevens]

Interesting perspective on truth in journalism. Perspective is a cousin to context ...

Quote

"If I'd written all the truth I knew for the past ten years, about 600 people—including me—would be rotting in prison cells from Rio to Seattle today. Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism."
—Hunter S. Thompson

[inoneeye]

3 hours ago, samstevens said:

Perspective is a cousin to context ...

I like that… 

The “Most Accurate, Least Factual” writer: As the artist Hunter S Thompson was always a fun read but I rarely, maybe never took his gonzo style as objective. Mixing fiction & satire with journalism…. it was as much about him as it was about the story he was documenting/telling. His ‘absolute’ truth probably was dangerous. 

Edited June 26, 2023 by inoneeye

[Allen Herbert]

"I think photojournalism is served best by being held and accountable to traditionally established ethics of using unaltered images" Inoneeye.

I was talking about the joy of taking photos .Little else.

"Perspective is a cousin to context ..."

Word play is also the cousin of banality..

 

 

[inoneeye]

37 minutes ago, Allen Herbert said:

I was talking about the joy of taking photos .Little else.

🤗