[normhead]

Have you guys ever heard of the observer effect... (when you've beaten one path into the ground.. try another tack.)

I can tell you're in shock here.

Wow! Soooo....making up a scenario to prove a specific point means the point - maker believes in that view point?

No it means the point of view is imaginary. It may be of some use, it may not be. In the case where the imaginary scenario first proposed is inconsistent or impossible, the whole argument then becomes false. It's really not rocket science.

The fact that someone presents a photo and claims it's "objective" doesn't make it so. The fact that someone claims a photograph is not objective also doesn't make it so. In the end, you end up talking about nothing. Photojournalists are for the most part propagandists for "photojournalism" because, their job depends on the public believing there is some kind of integrity to the process. Other observers claim there is no such thing as integrity in any photojournalism and that every "objective journalist " is simply following an agreed upon set of rules that they define as objective, but in fact have more to do with artificial constructs than objectivity.

They truly believe they can take an "objective photograph". If you can't even define what an objective photograph is then how can you begin to establish whether a photograph is objective or not?

What you are dealing here is not with philosophy, but with competing claims of objectivity.

After all none of the points raised as regards to how photograph can even be objective have been in any way addressed, unless you consider name calling and insults "addressing an issue". I'm beginning to believe that the concept of every photograph being a distortion of reality is beyond the intellectual scope of some of the readers.

---

Last edited by normhead; 08-11-2015 at 07:25 PM.

[wildman]

Mere humans lack the imagination to grasp reality.
Goethe

[sholtzma]

I am certainly willing to grant that every photo involves a selection process: a selection of elements, of perspective, of scope. In that sense, the selection is "subjective". But here we have to pause. There are two radically different senses of "subjective" and "objective", and we cause ourselves lots of confusion if we blur them.

In one (less understood) sense, "subjective" and "objective" refer to (different) kinds of reality: a thought, for example, has a subjective dimension by its nature. Actions have a subjective dimension, as does language. Agents, such as persons, have a subjective dimension. So does art. The mind is real as a subjective "thing". That which has a subjective dimension can be expressed, understood "from within", and must be described in terms of its "inner" content. A rock, by contrast, has only an objective reality; it has no subjective dimension at all. In this sense of the two terms, neither is "better" than the other.

In another more common sense, "subjective" and "objective" refer to a failure or success. For example, the content of a thought can succeed or fail to pick out something independent of the thought, as my thinking that I am now wearing a white T-shirt can pick out the white T-shirt I am actually wearing. In that sense, the content of the thought can be objective. Or, I can think I am wearing a white T-shirt when I am actually not wearing one. In that sense, the content of the thought can be subjective. Here, "subjective" is a mark of error, and "objective" is a mark of contact with reality. In only this sense, objectivity is good, and subjectivity is bad. Indeed, it is this distinction that makes possible the concept of knowledge, so anyone claiming that there is no objectivity in this sense would undermine the entire knowledge enterprise.

All "selections" are subjective in the first sense, but any selection could be more or less objective/subjective in the second sense. I could make a photo of a car, and that would necessarily involve the subjective reality of a selection. But that selection could also be more or less objective in the second sense. When you look at product photography, say of a sweater you might buy, you expect that the selection is objective in this second sense. You will feel misled if the photographer's selection presents the sweater as green (and you want a green sweater) when actually the sweater is red. Indeed, we have truth in advertising laws for just this reason. The selection, itself a subjective reality, can be objective or subjective in the second sense, and it should be objective.

If we are concerned that a selection be objective in this sense, then we will and should fault the selection if it turns out to be subjective in the second sense. We expect photojournalism to provide us with an objective take on the world; that is, we expect photojournalists to choose as objective a selection as they can. (This can get complicated when the photojournalist tries to objectively convey the mood or feel of a situation, when the facts get in the way of the mood. I take it that this was the problem faced by the photographer who moved the video camera out of the photo.)

Fine art photographers are not held to quite this kind of objectivity. Objectivity in art is a much more complicated subject. Longfellow's poem about Paul Revere is factually incorrect, but that does not take away at all from its objectively presenting a value reality, something true about what it is to be an American. Nevertheless, there is still objectivity in art, and we can and do distinguish poor art, good art, excellent art, and great art, in part by the ability of the art to capture something objective.

To Norm's question, we have and can articulate sufficiently good reasons for taking something to be subjective vs. objective in the second sense of those terms. That is one of the great tasks of philosophy, though one that modern philosophy has progressively abandoned. As a philosopher, I have quite a bit to say about this topic, but a photography board is not the place. I do agree with Kant here that any attempt to deny that we can draw this subjective/objective distinction presupposes the very distinction, so the distinction is logically unavoidable. That was the import of my question about whether the denial of objectivity is itself an objective claim.

[normhead]

Where as I'm still back at the part where the presence of the camera itself prevents in many cases any chance of an "objective photojournalistic" interpretation. I mean that was the topic.

That was the import of my question about whether the denial of objectivity is itself an objective claim.

I believe Kant's observation was that the denial of objectivity is a subjective claim, so I'm not sure you've got that right, but it matters not.

That's interesting... but I think I need a beer now.
The problem I'm seeing is that you are discussing the "objectivity", which is a whole discussion in itself, that may or may not (and probably is not) be relevant to "objectivity in photo journalism." It may be true that "the denial of objectivity is itself an objective claim.". The relevance to the claim that there is objectivity in photo journalism...it's much less like that there is objectivity in photojournalism, than the kind of absolute objectivity you'd be discussing in philosophy. Just like comparing product photography to photo-journalism, is a bit of a stretch as well. But even in product photography, photographs are valued by people who pay for those photographs for their ability to sell product, not on their "objectivity". I guarantee you if a seller finds one set of photos moves twice as much product as another, he's not going to care a whole lot about which is more objective.

The problem with objectivity in photojournalism, is that for a picture to be taken, the camera must be there. So, you've already introduced an element into reality, which should not be present, if it's to be truly objective. And if there is a person there with the camera, that disturbs the integrity of the scene being recorded even more.

---

Last edited by normhead; 08-12-2015 at 06:44 AM.

[wildman]

if a seller finds one set of photos moves twice as much product as another, he's not going to care a whole lot about which is more objective.

The purpose is not to inform but to advantage the seller.
I.e. - self interest trumps ethics.

[normhead]

And here is the problem with that logic. If the image that sells the most, and people are happy with what they buy, then perhaps the image that sells the most from a human perspective, is the one that from a human perspective, is the most objective. A studio shot of a sweater hanging on a clothes hanger against a neutral gray wall to maintain colour balance and for as accurate a possible colour representation, may to a human, look sterile and un-inviting. The same sweater on someone standing in a sunset on a beach, may not be as "objective" but from a human perspective would be more objective, because, it helps define "where would I wear this sweater, in what environment would it be appropriate?" It gives the sweater a human context... which, any time a sweater is worn, it will have. You make it sound like stripping the human context away from a object makes it more objective. So in essence what you are arguing against is not subjectivity, but human experience and interpretation.

I find it interesting that some humans believe they can remove the human efforts from their very human endeavours and that in coming with something bereft of any reference to human perception or emotion that they have some how created something "objective. " And that they call others who don't share their misguided belief that they can even have a non-human perspective... artsy.

[realitarian]

Showing a drab sweater in a more appealing sunlight is pretty different from 'photojournalism' as applied to factual reporting of events, don't you think?

Let's bring the discussion from Kant's categorical imperatives and a-priori notions of subjective vs. objective into more pragmatic forms.

Where you go to shoot, and how you frame your images is selective. Re-arranging a few items to emphasize a point, that's just good photography. That's when a picture helps you tell the story. And isn't that what photojournalists should do? Take pictures that help them tell the story? What is important?

Well, professional photojournalists disagree with you.

From Canadian Association of Journalists (http://www.caj.ca/ethics-guidelines/): Photojournalists and videographers do not alter images or sound so that they mislead the public. When we do alter or stage images, we label them clearly (as a photo illustration or a staged video, for example).

From American Society of New Editors (http://asne.org/content.asp?pl=236&sl=19&contentid=318): As journalists, we believe that credibility is our greatest asset. In documentary photojournalism, it is wrong to alter the content of a photograph in any way (electronically or in the darkroom) that deceives the public.We believe the guidelines for fair and accurate reporting should be the criteria for judging what may be done electronically to a photograph.

From National Press Photographer's Association (https://nppa.org/code_of_ethics):

5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events.
6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.

Does a photographer's perspective creep in when taking a picture of an event for journalistic reporting? Sure.

Should that perspective mislead the viewer? Absolutely not.

What if it does? Then that would be not accurate photojournalism.

Is the photographer manipulating it knowingly? If yes, then the ethical thing to do would be label it as an illustration. If not, that is something we try to mitigate using codes, operating principles, reviews, etc.

Does deliberate photo manipulation happen and does it pass off as fact? Yes, I am sure it does. But I believe not to the extent that I stop trusting everything I see, wear a tinfoil hat or become a nihilist.

[stevebrot]

I love it when someone posts something about ethical implications and we discover that so many forum members are really, really, really into philosophy!

It is cool to know that our people here on the forum are concerned and conversant on the issues of honesty, both documentary and artistic.


Steve

[jamarley]

Yeah, this discussion devolved into puke-worthy artsy platitudes pretty quickly when the original point was all about journalistic integrity. Not artistic transformation of a scene to a completely different (even opposite!) message or viewpoint.

Well, we do use our cameras as a kind of extension for our eyes. And, as the saying goes "the eyes are windows to the soul". Ergo it is not surprising this discussion would evolve, though I would be reluctant to say "devolve".

[realitarian]

I love it when someone posts something about ethical implications and we discover that so many forum members are really, really, really into philosophy!

It is cool to know that our people here on the forum are concerned and conversant on the issues of honesty, both documentary and artistic.


Steve

To be honest, I find this discussion interesting too. I am not a photojournalist so chances are slim I will ever be in a situation where the code counts. But I find this subject fascinating and everyone is making great points. This discussion is also at an interesting intersection of photography, ethics and race. This is a nice workout for the brain. And I am bored at work....sometimes. This is way more interesting that crunching Excel spreadsheets and creating PowerPoint slides all day.

[normhead]

Well, professional photojournalists disagree with you.

NO they don't, you do.

Photojournalists and videographers do not alter images or sound so that they mislead the public. When we do alter or stage images, we label them clearly (as a photo illustration or a staged video, for example).

Misleading the public is another issue. This does not even dress the issue of arranging things so the image is more understandable.

As journalists, we believe that credibility is our greatest asset. In documentary photojournalism, it is wrong to alter the content of a photograph in any way (electronically or in the darkroom) that deceives the public.We believe the guidelines for fair and accurate reporting should be the criteria for judging what may be done electronically to a photograph.

Again ,we are not talking about deceiving the public, not altering the perspective or angle of view to achieve clarity.

5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events.

Just do it un-intentionally and for some reason that's better.

6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.

Most of us agree one should not mislead the viewers, but how does bringing a teddy bear to the foreground in any way mislead the viewers. The Teddy bear was there, it was a perfect symbol to illustrate the tragedy. It doesn't mislead it clarifies. To me, the insistence on a lack of direction form the photographer is cutting him off at the legs. The good photographer goes to the scene, understands the situation, and shoots an image that pulls the viewer in and helps them understand the off camera context. It's a lazy photojournalist who just turns up, snaps an "objective" picture and presents his editor with an image that could be taken in his /her son's messy untidy bedroom as much as it could be an image of hurricane damage. I'd fire the dude's ass.

Does deliberate photo manipulation happen and does it pass off as fact?

All the time everywhere, every day. Photos are manipulated to increase the clarity of what the photograph is repressing. That's good thing. That's what photgraphers do. If you don't want that invent a robot that just goes around snapping random pictures. The hard thing would be coming up with a photograph that could be taken as "fact". But I did think of another one where that would be true. medical photography, where togs are called in to photograph specific medical conditions, but even those guys move around to get the best angle). Journalism just isn't that type of field.

So as I said above.. professional photographers don't disagree with me at all. We are in total agreement. People shouldn't do things that deceive people, whether it be take an "objective" photograph, or alter a photograph. And good creative photography that draws in the viewer and defines the off camera context as much as possible is better than bland generic shots that could be taken anywhere. That involves creating perspectives and story line within the photograph, that engage human interest.

[jamarley]

way more interesting that crunching Excel spreadsheets

Indeed.
I'm finding it interesting that we are all having such difficulty pinpointing "photographic objectivity". Perhaps it's because it is virtually(no pun intended) impossible. Do we really think we can objectively capture or document reality given our current zeal to video everything? ...The Truman Show, anyone?... Have we thought of everything necessary to ensure success in that endeavor? Do we even have the resources to accomplish this?

My takeaway from this discussion is to be constantly aware of this juxtaposition BEFORE I snap the shutter. Not entirely possible or feasible, but try I must!

[normhead]

Indeed.
I'm finding it interesting that we are all having such difficulty pinpointing "photographic objectivity". Perhaps it's because it is virtually(no pun intended) impossible. Do we really think we can objectively capture or document reality given our current zeal to video everything? ...The Truman Show, anyone?... Have we thought of everything necessary to ensure success in that endeavor? Do we even have the resources to accomplish this?

My takeaway from this discussion is to be constantly aware of this juxtaposition BEFORE I snap the shutter. Not entirely possible or feasible, but try I must!

That's really good takeaway. Understand that you are selecting a specific perspective, and be aware of why you are doing it. Pretending there is some kind of "objective" image, that is just there all pure an innocent, and if you just act in some pre-defined way you will capture it, is pretty much delusional. You are there, you've changed the context, make up for your disruptive presence by adding something to people's understanding of what you see. So it impacts them, the way it impacted you. That's photography.

[realitarian]

Well normhead, you were OK with the cropped photo that initially lead to this discussion (white adult's hand on a black child's head) when by schlotzma's own post, he did it intentionally to create tension which didn't exist in the uncropped version (and to his credit, realized it was manipulation). While you personally might be OK with the cropped version since you don't see things through a racially charged prism, how's that OK in the context of photojournalism? That qualifies as intentional manipulation.

If you are manipulating an image removed from the full context to purposefully exacerbate or extrude people's biases AND using that picture to report on an event, that is not ethical reporting. If you are not using that crop to report but only to use as an illustration to make a point or start a dialog, then fine.

[BrianR]

Does deliberate photo manipulation happen and does it pass off as fact? Yes, I am sure it does. But I believe not to the extent that I stop trusting everything I see, wear a tinfoil hat or become a nihilist.

A tinfoil hat is no protection from people misleading you with their manipulated photos. Tinfoil glasses are what you need. Preferably made with a double layer of heavy duty foil.