Damon DAmato

<p>Electronic flash. Maybe more than a dozen times, but that's over many, many years. I use them only when I absolutely have to, and almost always hate the results.</p>

<p>Gup, it's the electric cord that would be confusing.</p>

<p><img title="" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7074/6994474688_65fd0cbb8f_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="465" /></p>

<p>Boris Johnson was the first thing I thought, too.</p>

<p><img title="" src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4030/4318076696_742bf77484_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="465" /></p>

<p>For a couple of years or so, all I carried was a 28 2.8. <br />That lens, unfortunately, is broke. And, unfortunately, so am I. <br />So it's the back to the 18-50 kit lens these days.<br /><br /><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8302/7862420754_85082bfce5_o.jpg" alt="" width="425" height="640" /></p>

<p>I'm not a landscape photographer, and it's a sophomoric response to suggest that I have to be one to be critical of someone's landscape work. </p>

<p>I've always been mystified at why his photos he did of the Los Angeles landscape were so crappy.</p> <p> </p>

<p>This question, like the "is photography hard or easy" from the other day, has no real answer-- it's different for every photographer, and within that, in street especially, each photographic situation can be different. <br />Street portraits, candid street portraits, funny or poignant moments caught, found objects, cityscapes, ironic juxtapositions-- all street photography. Some use people skills, some don't; some pose people, some never do; some; some raise the camera, others shoot from the hip; some lay in wait, others just shoot.</p>

<p><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4118/5449737829_8a276edbcf_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="425" /></p>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5216/5449737287_226783bc4b_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="360" /></p>

<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>

<p>Lannie and Alan, I completely agree with those sentiments.<br> <br />Ron, I think those are great rules to have in place to avoid various slippery slopes and thin edges of the wedge.</p>

<p>It's definitely not easy to make editorial cropping decisions like the example with the bishop. These questions are, of course, going to come up. Which gives us a place to start-- that the editor has to at least start from a position of presenting what was recorded and note when it isn't. Editors, for example, regularly omit words from a quote with an ellipsis. Nothing wrong with that, in itself. These days, they seem to more and more use something like this [...] to make clear the ellipsis is not just a pause, and that words have been omitted. <br /><br />It also tells me that there should be no question when it comes to the easy ones. <br /><br />Attribution and disclosure are also part of the editors tools to at least lean toward objectivity. As long as you brought up the priest example, if the bishop is in the shot, the editor should be checking for reports or statements from or about the bishop, and the slug line, nearly always present with photos in journals, should present that information, properly attributed. If he's not part of the story at all or had no comment, report that or crop him out like any other bystander. If you don't know, report that. That's just basic journalism. </p>

<p>Truth is not the standard of good journalism; objectivity is. Nobody is asking photojournalists to turn in "the truth," because, as was said, a photograph is never the truth.<br /><br />But a photograph can most definitely be a lie. Big difference between "not truth" and "lie."<br /><br />Can journals, at the very least, require that the photographs they print or display not be outright lies? If not, what's the point of journalism at all? Journalism isn't an art gallery of pretty pictures. <br /><br />(Jeez, I can't believe I just typed that-- asking people if it's okay if their newspapers and other journals don't deliberately lie to us. And, I'm quite sure, there will be those here who think it's just fine with them if news services serve up lies.)<br /><br /></p>

<p>A. T. Burke, thank you for cleaning up that link!<br /><br /><br /> Also, thank you for your point of view-- you said a lot of what I think about journalism, j-school, and more. I had a couple of more traditional journalism classes as part of a photojournalism major back in the mid-seventies. A lot of what passes for journalism now would never have made it out of my 101 class.</p>

<p>National Geographic Magazine has addressed t<a href="http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/07/editors-note-images-and-ethics/">he issue of altered photographs in this editorial</a> from Editor in Chief Susan Goldberg. <br /><br />"At <em>National Geographic,</em> where visual storytelling is part of our DNA, making sure you see real images is just as important as making sure you read true words."<br /><br />Thank you, Ms. Goldberg. I agree completely.</p>

<p><img title="" src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2077/1574251208_c64034df36_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="503" /></p>

<p><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8021/7633600922_3fdbbf1806_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="394" /></p>

<p>Missed it by a stop.<br />Click <a href="http://www.verexif.com/en/ver.php?foto_file=&foto_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrscdn.500px.org%2Fphoto%2F123865983%2Fm%253D900%2F1853bac73e3d64706d68583eef9484ce">this link</a> for the EXIF information about the photo. <br />Seems it was done in camera, but at 1/8.</p>

<p>Looks to me like a single exposure at about 1/15 or so-- slow enough to blur the moving people but short enough to handhold and keep the still objects somewhat sharp. <br /><br />Then, do the wedding photography style selective color abomination in photoshop or whatever, and you're all set.</p>