I've been wanting to ask this for quite some time.
Is it ethical to reduce noise when shooting photojournalism? I don't mean in-camera, but though an in-computer software application, Noise Ninja, Noiseware, Neat Images, etc.
I don't do any noise reduction when I shoot for the paper, but I will when the standards of photojournalism don't apply for sales, or free lance jobs.
What do you think? Do you you use NR in photojournalism?
Well I have been doing the PJ thing for 30 years, 24 full-time. Face it, PJs have to shoot in some of the most marginal conditions out there and in order to bring home the image, you may have to push technology to the limits resulting in some noise.
My view is, noise reduction in PJ work is fine as long as it would not change the content of the image. It would be hard to do so, I think. Noise reduction would be no more of an invasion of the image as color/tone correction, sharpening etc. would be. These adjustments don't alter the image in that respect. This would be no more altering the image than say a conversion to B&W. Cloning, healing, masking, cropping inappropriately, etc. have no place in PJ work.
If the paper(s) you shoot for have rules for this then you would be obliged to follow them. Most papers I have worked for, I know of no such restrictions. It may be possible, to protect themselves when they receive images from outside sources, some papers prefer a totally untouched image so they may then be able to prove from the original, there have been NO modifications whatsoever. Because there are those in the industry who will cut corners to make a buck or promote a point of view. Thank God they are few. Many papers prefer to edit the file in their system and offering them untouched direct-from-the-camera files will help them do a better job as well. No sense in double editing, too much data loss.
Images I prepare for newsprint don't receive as much noise reduction as I would apply to a print for other clients. I think a little noise/grain in newsprint is fine and may add to the overall effect.
Think noise reduction didn't exist in the past? Shoot Tri-x at ISO 1600 and develop in D-76 or Accufine. Which one would have delivered finer grain and less contrast? Accufine. Nobody had a problem with it over 30 years ago when this was pretty much standard practice.
The problem is: I am the editor (of the school paper) and ethical use of images isn't a high priority (which is very unfortunate), so I could violate every rule of photojournalism ethics and they wouldn't understand what the problem was.
Fortunately, I don't have problems with noise, but I wanted to know for a point of information.
That does put you in a pickle if you're the editor and the one calling the shots on anything remotely questionable.
Caleb, im just a shooter and have never had such a responsibility to choose or say which photos to incorporate into a story, but... If I were I would definetely use common sense.
If an image was shot at such a high iso in such horrid conditions to truly mitigate the use of NN, why not use a different shot?
Just a thought.
btw, do you wear many hats within your school paper? Editor and shooter?
Since I've upgraded to a dSLR, a Canon D30 (the original), I had haven't had a huge problem with noise. ISO 1600 can get bit a bit noisy, but as you said, I can usually choose an image that has less noise.
This wasn't always the case, my Canon S3 IS has a horrible problem with noise at ISO 400 and 800 (it's a p&s and that's expected), but if it ever came down to it, I was thinking I may one day want to reduce noise to improve image quality.
Yes, I wear several hats. Primary photographer, photo editor, writer, some layout, some copyreading, general office work - checking the voicemail, email, regular mail - and anything else needed
I think this is going to be, rather, continue to be great experience for you. You'll no doubt be an AP staffer within a few years. Keep doing your thing Caleb.
Ethics is a always a touchy area. I am also a photo editor, in our news room 99% of the time we do not use noise reduction of any form. This is not to say we have any rules against it, just when outputing to newsprint or web sized images. the noise is usually hidden pretty well, so we don't bother reducing noise.
The issue of cloning out sensor dust falls into the same category. There are many papers and agencies that do use NR very frequently, and clone dust. There are probably an equal number that do not. I know people who work for outlets that practice both methods, I'm sure others here can confirm.
Noise ridden images are very common in PJ work, just look at the NPPA's best of photojournalism 2007 issue that just came out. Many of the winning images contain a ton of noise.
When it comes down to it, if you're misleading the viewer with your post work, something is wrong.
From purely a philosphical point of view, it should be acceptable. Removing any artifact that is created by the camera itself should be no problem.
However, with the current state of affairs in the PJ world, there is a risk that someone might get upset. My strategy is to list all post-processing that was done to an image when I submit it. If the editor does not like it, I can provide the RAW file or an unprocessed JPG/TIF.
I have about 10 years experience as a professional PJ, newspapers, and I don't see a problem with it. I also don't suggest relying on it as some people seem to. I generally attempt to make all of my noise reduction a pre-production step, ie strobes in dark gyms etc. Noise reduction doesn't alter the content of the image, unless you are using it for some sort of special effect, which would push it into the "illustration" category and require a label stating that fact. If I were to work at a newspaper that had a no noise-reduction or no sensor dust cloning policy, I would adhere to that.
I find it interesting that the OP believes it's ok to use in-camera noise reduction, but is questioning the use of PP noise reduction software to do the same thing.
In camera, or during PP, noise reduction is a process that uses software to alter the original captured data. Personally I don't see a difference.
I'm not a PJ, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I like Nathan's advice........ When in doubt, leave the decision up to the editor.
I am a high school journalism teacher who advises both Yearbook and Newspaper. We do use NNinja for noise reduction, however we do face the need to teach all new photographers the difference between basic 'photo fixing' and more significant modifications.
Rocketball wrote:
I find it interesting that the OP believes it's ok to use in-camera noise reduction, but is questioning the use of PP noise reduction software to do the same thing.
In camera, or during PP, noise reduction is a process that uses software to alter the original captured data. Personally I don't see a difference.
I'm not a PJ, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I like Nathan's advice........ When in doubt, leave the decision up to the editor.
I only specified a diffrence because the camera I have doesn't have the capability to do that though, as you point out, the difference is almost non-existent if it even does exist, I didn't want to focus on that.
