drofnad
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.5 #10 · Photojournalism and altering photos | |
they had an image of the Paris skyline with a drooping Eiffel Tower ... that was an obvious illustration for effect ... very identifiable as such ....
the manipulation of the Obama image was not as identifiable and implied conditions and information that was not true to what actually occurred in the original image ....
Here I disagree: you're reading a LOT into these images
-- that someone is talking to Obama? Maybe, maybe not; backs of heads don't talk.
The *reality* that the photo has is that he indeed WAS present at that site, not
superimposed as though there when in fact the shot came from, say, a golf course.
While I can feel discomfort at the adjustment to get such a *clean*, focus-on-Obama
image that was published, it certainly isn't warping Trvth the way you make it sound.
And my point above was mainly that the absolute adherence to the never-modify
(within some range of effects) rule is that many other aspects can weigh more
heavily on the image significance, so being squeaky clean on this rather technical
aspect doesn't free oneself of those other effects & their influences -- such as
showing an apparently (we are imputing the emotion, after all) angry countenance
grabbed from perhaps just a couple of many photos taken, selected for effect but
misrepresenting the case in an expected, natural implication.
When photos have been altered in a way that changes the meaning of the image in a drastic, material way (whether through cropping, cloning, or other) I think it needs to be disclosed as an altered photo-- and in some cases simply not done when the disclosure is too hidden as to confuse a large portion of the readership even if disclosure is given.
And I --and apparently those others impugned as "lowering the bar"-- just don't
feel that any of this trio (Obama, OJ, golfer) of altered images has ANY effect on
the meaning of the image; rather --in the case of Obama/golfer-- it helps focus on
a rightful interpretation/appreciation of the shot.
Re OJ, someone will know this, but to the viewer --and in some other case, then?--,
whose to say that the supposed pejorative TIME pic isn't the *real* one, UNaltered,
taken straight from the less-than-photographically stellar jail, and that Newsweek
is the organization who altered this underexposed image to cast OJ in better light?
TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOOKING NUMBER : Newsweek's seems *writ large*, and that
would seem to be the altered case; each portrait is like-sized, but the numbers
differ. Now, given an expected reaction to such a dark image, is the magazine
under some ethical obligation to reduce that impression by improving the photo?
But, lots of slippery-slope worries here.
Could there be a PJ standard of accepted alterations, stating allowances
with some standard-defined indicator to these (PJ-0 = pure ; PJ-1 = <maybe
obscuring a person seated behind speaker w/finger up nose, etc.> ; PJ-2 ... ) ?
Then editorial/publisher judgement would be to choose among such things,
having the standard for definition & broad understanding of whatever level
of photography has been employed; "photo-illustration" is such a big bucket.
Here's an excerpt (unaltered, just cropped :o) of some discussion about ethics
@ www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/06/ethics01.html --:
Newton said. "Images affect memory, and behavior, and values. Images affect what you believe about yourself, about others, and about the world out there. Images are powerful, and visual ethics is about the appropriate use of powerful images."
...
Long cited People magazine's recent decision to digitally alter a cover photograph from the Virginia Tech massacre to remove what they believed may have been the genitals of one of the shooting victims, when it fact the item was part of a tourniquet the student applied to stop the gunshot wound's bleeding. The decision to alter the image was made by People's top editors. "If they can't use the picture 'as is,' then don't use it. Use another picture," Long said....Show more →
Now, say they don't have another photograph: what to do? Consider how much
strength is attributed to an image, the effect on values ... ; should People do
without, and compromise --thus-- their coverage of the event? -- for if you
accept the premise of value of the image, you must concede the loss if it's
not used, and that that is a Bad Thing for the news-needing public. Was the
presence of a tourniquet so important here? --arguably not, though a detail
that would perhaps help; but not if perceived as what People perceived it to be.
So, could there be an agreed, standard-defined way to get such images IN,
but also with some indication of the impurity (a standard-defined impurity per
level)?
.:. ... thinking that the public loses more with the strict rule Long opined,
than they do with that bit of alteration, which left them simply not with
opportunity to believe a tourniquet (or misbelieve, genitalia) was present.
-drofnad
|
