I doubt there is a single person on this forum that has not altered a photo in some form or fashion, from altering a dust particle too a full blown removal of subject matter to realize the vision of the composition, technology has allowed anyone with the most modest budget to alter shots.
But one field that gets special attention to this practice is photojournalism. Altering photos of course can produce a far more dramatic result. But is it a "bad thing", if/when does it go "too far", and should there be a moratorium on any photo alteration when it comes to the news?
The latest example (and controversy) is a picture of President Obama in a BP atricle from the Economist:
So the story was meant to show isolation, to show vulnerability, which clearly the photo does suggest, but as we see the editing out of people to make the photo "work". Now if the photographer were possibly 5 seconds off they might have gotten the photo that would have "worked" for that story, who knows, but the damage is done and now it's fodder for the bobbleheads on Sunday programs.
To bring another factor into this, very seldom do you get a image shot for a story. Many news organizations now use stock photography with their tight budgets. So there is likely literally thousands of photos that probably have been altered in such a way that makes the original significantly different.
But it does not have to be an alteration of removing people or items from a shot, a simple brightness and contrast adjustment can add far more drama to the photo. Another perfect example is the OJ Time cover shot.
So the question becomes do we accept that alteration of photos are now a norm to get the desired results, or that in the case of the news, that they should be exempt from any alterations? It's a tough one to think, of course one should feel the news should be "pure" and "without bias", but far too often stories are created with an agenda in mind, and it's corresponding photos are chosen and altered with great care to convey that message.
Another forum addressed the issue of your first example as well ... and the surprise was that comments on one blog (mostly non-photoggraphers) seemed to have no problem with the edit .... it appears that with each successive generation, the bar is lowered a bit. Which is a bit scary in light of the current technology.
For me, and I have been a full time PJ for over 30 years, I have no problem with enhancing an image to give it the best possible reproduction quality by extending dynamic range, contrast and tonality ... or enhancing color, hue and saturation so the end product is true to what was seen at the time of capture ... but altering the content, or over enhancing the image to intentionally depict the subject in a negative fashion is stepping way over the line as was done with the Time magazine cover. Sure, much of the world considers OJ Simpson to be a really nasty person ... but was it Time Magazine's duty to portray him as such on their cover? I don't think so ... for the image on Newsweek that was not altered in such a fashion didn't shed a positive light on OJ ... but it also didn't generate an even more negative attitude either ....
Photojournalism, in my opinion, as in all journalism, should be the presentation of the facts as they occur without bias, pro or con, and allow the viewer or reader to form their own opinion based upon the facts. Our images or words should not be offered in such a manner as sway the opinions of our viewers and readers by deceiving them with altered facts, either using our images or words to do so ....
Fortunately, there are still many news outlets that are very wary of such actions and set strict guidelines .. however ... there are those few which will ignore the guidelines in order to achieve their own personal agendas.
butchM, I agree with you totally that when a photo is altered that it crosses the line, but that is my own subjective conclusion. Where should be the line drawn is the real question? Does things like enhancing color or contrast, or even cropping crossing that line. For instance if the Obama picture above had a larger separation of people where the story writer or editor could have cropped the people out of the image to produce the same result; is that example gone too far?
I don't really have a comment on the ethics of it, but the two most recent examples of alteration in photojournalism that I can think of involved the photographer editing a photo to make it appear more dramatic and then uploading it to the newswire without the wire knowing it was edited. That definitely crosses the line. I think there is some expectation that if an altered photo is ending up on the cover of a magazine, there is some knowledge at the top that the photo is edited and it's apparently not crossing any lines. So the examples you posted might be a bit different than the most recent high profile cases of edited photos being printed in news media.
I also think some line needs to be drawn between newsmagazines like TIME and the Economist, and newsires like AP or papers like the New York Times.
LTParis wrote:
For instance if the Obama picture above had a larger separation of people where the story writer or editor could have cropped the people out of the image to produce the same result; is that example gone too far?
That is a very "iffy" area ... if the crop was made to make the image "fit" in the space allotted is one thing ... if the image was cropped to "hide" pertinent information changing or obscuring the facts of the situation and could present a bias to the viewer ... then I personally would not crop the image and lobby strongly with the layout designer to change the design so the cropping would not be necessary .... as far as cropping goes ... this is at least one area that has been of concern since long before the digital era ... or Content Aware Fill ....
Ethically there is no difference between these two examples and the manipulation of the photos of John Kerry and Jane Fonda to make them appear as if they were on the same stage protesting the Vietnam War, part the "swiftboating" defamation campaign waged against Senator Kerry. All are political propaganda.
Some guidance I got from the public affairs officer where I'm at is that if you couldn't do it in a conventional darkroom, you can't do it digitally. So enhancing dynamic range, cropping, dodging and burning removing spots, masks, contrast are all o.k.
Regarding cropping to hide info. I'd say that that's o.k., and would be keeping in line with whatever slant the publication wants to put on whatever article. Every journalist / news organization has some kind of bias. I don't believe there is any purely neutral journalist out there.
mdude85 wrote:
I also think some line needs to be drawn between newsmagazines like TIME and the Economist, and newsires like AP or papers like the New York Times.
Sorry ... I couldn't disagree more with this point of view .... there is a place for editorial opinion and even "photo illustration" in journalism ... that place is not on the front cover. Regardless of the name on the masthead of a particular publication or source of the imagery ....
LABRIEDL wrote:
Every journalist / news organization has some kind of bias. I don't believe there is any purely neutral journalist out there.
David
Yes, unfortunately that is the state of affairs these days and it is a disservice to the general public at large. That should not however, stop journalists from striving to be neutral in their daily duties.
I have had the pleasure of working for, with and along side some very talented writers and photographers over the years ... they all have a personal bias ... including myself ... though the vast majority of those folks, you could not discern their bias by the words they wrote or the photos they captured .... sadly that percentage of behavior is changing in dramatic proportions with each passing day ....
butchM wrote:
Sorry ... I couldn't disagree more with this point of view .... there is a place for editorial opinion and even "photo illustration" in journalism ... that place is not on the front cover. Regardless of the name on the masthead of a particular publication or source of the imagery ....
Why not? Many Economist covers feature photoillustrations. If the contents of the magazine itself are a place for editorial opinion or photoillustration, then why should its cover be held to a different standard? I think we can all agree that the Economist takes a lot of editorial stances that most large newspapers, and certainly newswires like AP, do not. Economist has consistently stated that its goal is not just to chronicle news in a neutral manner, but to offer arguments and viewpoints in almost all its articles. So there is a certain artistic license that can be taken along with that stance, I would say.
mdude85 wrote:
Why not? Many Economist covers feature photoillustrations. If the contents of the magazine itself are a place for editorial opinion or photoillustration, then why should its cover be held to a different standard? I think we can all agree that the Economist takes a lot of editorial stances that most large newspapers, and certainly newswires like AP, do not. Economist has consistently stated that its goal is not just to chronicle news in a neutral manner, but to offer arguments and viewpoints in almost all its articles. So there is a certain artistic license that can be taken along with that stance, I would say. ...Show more →
Simply because the "Economist" (I'm pretty sure) never identified their altered cover image as a "photo illustration" ... leading their readers to believe it was the true content of the image at the point of capture .... that's the difference .... the photo of the president will likely never be perceived as an "illustration" by most readers ... unlike the bent Eiffel Tower on the current cover is definitely identified as such ... unless of course it has been much warmer in Paris the last few weeks than I am aware of.
Some guidance I got from the public affairs officer where I'm at is that if you couldn't do it in a conventional darkroom, you can't do it digitally.
You should see the manipulations Pete Turner, Jerry Uelsmann and W. Eugene Smith could do to an image in a darkroom ( Pete was using a slide duplicator and masking 35mm Kodachrome but the idea is the same: using "analog" tools" to create a heavily manipulated final image.)
Did the Economist identify it as a photo-illustration or a manipulated photo?
E-Vener wrote:
You should see the manipulations Pete Turner, Jerry Uelsmann and W. Eugene Smith could do to an image in a darkroom ( Pete was using a slide duplicator and masking 35mm Kodachrome but the idea is the same: using "analog" tools" to create a heavily manipulated final image.)
Did the Economist identify it as a photo-illustration or a manipulated photo?
I don't have a hard copy of the magazine but on their website the image is labeled neither a manipulated photo nor a photoillustration. It actually credits Reuters for the "photograph". I agree, it should be labeled as a photoillustration.
Nathan Whitchu wrote:
people don't have a problem with it becuase it's not photojournalism. These are magazine covers.
Honestly, even if you had left the woman in place, and just cropped the photo above his waste, it would have conveyed the same sense of helplessness and defeat. In the actual photo, he is just looking down at whatever happens to be on the shoreline. So what crosses the line -- the selective cropping, cloning the woman out, or perhaps both? Or neither?
You have to decide if the "journalist" is acting as a reporter or is dealing in "opinion." If they are pretending to "report" or "document" and they manipulate the view so that it creates a false impression, that's unethical. If the effort is "editorial" in that it's trying to create or motivate opinions, then manipulation is useful. One of the problems facing much of the "news" media these days is that they have failed to keep opinion out of news.
Craig , by "journalist" do you mean photographer, photo editor, editor, publisher, or publication owner? All might have wildly different even conflicting agendas.
Craig , by "journalist" do you mean photographer, photo editor, editor, publisher, or publication owner? All might have wildly different even conflicting agendas.
Just as TV news should have to identify file footage when used, but doesn't, the print media should have to identify when a photo is substantially altered. Shoulda, woulda, coulda... If only the folks who run the TV News and Print news media realized that they're destoying their own credibility, long term, by not being up front about alterations. Oh well, they'll get what they deserve if they go bankrupt 'cause no one trusts their 'facts' any more. Of course, the implications are much darker for a whiole society trying to continue and improve without a remotely trustable media.
E-Vener wrote:
Craig , by "journalist" do you mean photographer, photo editor, editor, publisher, or publication owner? All might have wildly different even conflicting agendas.
Ellis ... every job title you mentioned is a "journalist" (at least that is how I was taught in my formative years) ... and they all should not be concerned with a personal agenda as far as the factual content they are presenting ... what they should be presenting are the actual facts and details when reporting the news not generating or manipulating public opinion by emphasizing only those portions of the facts they think are important. If anyone working any of these job titles is motivated by a personal agenda ... they should be looking for another line of work.
For if this trend of "agendas" continues as it has in the past few years ... as a society we will lose our "Fourth Estate" and end up with the 21st Century version of Pravda ..... only telling the public what those in power want us to hear and see .....
