Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-05-2015, 06:53 PM - 2 Likes   #1
Veteran Member
LeDave's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,067
Photomanipulation

The article below is a good read about the future of photography and it's danger in photo-manipulation. Today's world of photography in most cases, you must be good at photographing as much as you are good with taking the photo.

Interview: Michael Kamber on Photojournalism Ethics and the Altering of Images

08-05-2015, 07:12 PM   #2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,251
That was a great read LeDave !
Thanks for sharing.

It will be interesting to find out more about the "Altered Images" project.
08-05-2015, 08:31 PM   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
sholtzma's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Salisbury, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,043
Well worth our discussing on this forum. Hope more people read this and think about where the truth lies and what the implications are.

Years ago, I took a picture (on color film) of a white man with his hand on a young African-American's head. The context, obvious in the photo, was of the man doing a face painting for the child (at a festival). I printed it as a b&w and cropped it, leaving only the tension of white man holding head of black child. My friend/informal teacher immediately called me on it. He pointed out the manipulation. I was much more aware and careful after that.
08-06-2015, 05:34 AM   #4
Master of the obvious
Loyal Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lowlands of Norway
Posts: 18,309
Interesting read, thanks!

08-06-2015, 05:52 AM   #5
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,574
QuoteOriginally posted by sholtzma Quote
Years ago, I took a picture (on color film) of a white man with his hand on a young African-American's head. The context, obvious in the photo, was of the man doing a face painting for the child (at a festival). I printed it as a b&w and cropped it, leaving only the tension of white man holding head of black child. My friend/informal teacher immediately called me on it. He pointed out the manipulation. I was much more aware and careful after that.
I would disagree with your teacher. That's not manipulation. That's seeing a scene with greater implications and recording it. That's what photography is all about, IMHO. You took an ordinary scene and made it greater than what it really was simply by how you cropped it. What you manipulated was how people would interpret your image. You didn't change the basic image. You directed your viewers' eye to see the message you were trying to convey. Dude...that's photography at its best!
08-06-2015, 07:17 AM - 1 Like   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
I think it should be pointed out that the article was narrowly about Photojournalism not photography in general and certainly not about photography as a art form.
Journalism's primary ethic is "never purposely mislead". This ethic, understandably, has the tendency to reduce the camera to a copy machine and the photographer to a mere machine operator - it's just the nature of the beast.

In journalism accuracy is the highest value, not interpretation, at least ideally.

Last edited by wildman; 08-06-2015 at 07:45 AM.
08-06-2015, 07:25 AM   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
sholtzma's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Salisbury, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,043
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
I would disagree with your teacher. That's not manipulation. That's seeing a scene with greater implications and recording it. That's what photography is all about, IMHO. You took an ordinary scene and made it greater than what it really was simply by how you cropped it. What you manipulated was how people would interpret your image. You didn't change the basic image. You directed your viewers' eye to see the message you were trying to convey. Dude...that's photography at its best!
Well, what you said I was doing is what I thought I was doing at the time, so thanks for understanding my intentions! But his point was that I was turning the scene from what it was into what it wasn't. He at least wanted me to be aware of the ethical limits. I took a scene that was not racially charged and made it seem as if it were....

One approach, I suppose, would have been to show both the original and my transformed version together.

08-06-2015, 08:05 AM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
QuoteOriginally posted by sholtzma Quote
One approach, I suppose, would have been to show both the original and my transformed version together.
Context is definitely important. If you were showing your cropped version someplace where people would believe it was actually occurring as you've presented it, that could be potentially damaging to the subjects and imo unethical and deceitful.

I look at people trying to pass off zoo animals as wildlife encounters via clever framing or cropping in exactly the same way. A cleverly framed photo is great, but some honesty in the presentation is worth something.
08-06-2015, 08:21 AM   #9
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by sholtzma Quote
Well worth our discussing on this forum. Hope more people read this and think about where the truth lies and what the implications are.

Years ago, I took a picture (on color film) of a white man with his hand on a young African-American's head. The context, obvious in the photo, was of the man doing a face painting for the child (at a festival). I printed it as a b&w and cropped it, leaving only the tension of white man holding head of black child. My friend/informal teacher immediately called me on it. He pointed out the manipulation. I was much more aware and careful after that.
Such a picture could potentially be used a sounding board to analyze one's preconceptions based on the cropped image. The cropped image was the artistic one. Your friend hates art. Having grown up in mostly white neighbourhoods as a dark skinned child, I was many times attended to by white men, and would see nothing wrong with a picture as you cropped it. I would suggest that suggesting it not be displayed as such would be part of the historical pattern of trying to censor mixed race images on the grounds of a preference for racial separation. What other objection could there be? Reality is often rather blah, art challenges.
08-06-2015, 09:23 AM   #10
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 221
QuoteOriginally posted by sholtzma Quote
a white man with his hand on a young African-American's head
Not sure if it is a typo, but it connotes racial generalization. For instance, read it the other way and see how it sounds: "...a caucasian's hand on a young African-Amercian child's head". Similarly in the picture, given the use of phrenology and other racially charged activities in the not-so-distant past, a benign and well-intentioned event captured in the picture could be construed as just the opposite after the cropping. At the very least, it would be open to interpretation. Artistic? Maybe, but the ethics would depend on your intention and the context of the presentation of the cropped image, no? I can see the point your friend/informal teacher was trying to make.
08-06-2015, 09:41 AM   #11
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by realitarian Quote
Not sure if it is a typo, but it connotes racial generalization. For instance, read it the other way and see how it sounds: "...a caucasian's hand on a young African-Amercian child's head". Similarly in the picture, given the use of phrenology and other racially charged activities in the not-so-distant past, a benign and well-intentioned event captured in the picture could be construed as just the opposite after the cropping. At the very least, it would be open to interpretation. Artistic? Maybe, but the ethics would depend on your intention and the context of the presentation of the cropped image, no? I can see the point your friend/informal teacher was trying to make.
QuoteQuote:
Similarly in the picture, given the use of phrenology and other racially charged activities in the not-so-distant past, a benign and well-intentioned event captured in the picture could be construed as just the opposite after the cropping.
Interesting, so what you are saying is, no matter how innocent the picture, the artist is in some way responsible for every perverted response generated in the minds of deviant beholders?
08-06-2015, 09:54 AM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Reality is often rather blah, art challenges.
April 26, 1937 Spanish Civil War
Bombing of Guernica - is nearly destroyed by close to three hours of bombing

Which one is most accurate and which one most truthful?

Last edited by wildman; 08-14-2015 at 04:17 AM.
08-06-2015, 09:55 AM   #13
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New Jersey
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 409
Where to begin? It seems to me that the world does not care about how it's reality is reported or documented. Nor do flora or fauna concern themselves with any of that. Only we humans strut and fret ourselves across our self-made stage and worry ourselves to death about how well we did during our time in the spotlight. We have and perhaps will always be handicapped in our abilities to recollect, to report and to judge; indeed it defines us as human. Does this imply a disdain of discussion such as this? Not at all. I am deeply concerned and disturbed by the ways our lives are manipulated - by propaganda, by extreme consumerism (and it's henchman, advertising) and by supposed reportage. It's not so much WHAT we do, but HOW it is portrayed that govern our reactions.

In the exhibit mentioned in the article we see again and again how the blurring of art disguised as fact is most jarring. When perception is based upon deception we all suffer regardless of intent. And yet, we need to temper our scorn, matching it with the degree of deception and, yes, with an examination of original intent.

Years ago, when I was a newlywed, my wife and I moved back to where I grew up. She, however, was from a more rural community and unaccustomed to things like multiple network TV channels and news programs all day long. When I would come home from work I would often find her depressed and saddened from the TV news of the day. She eventually solved the problem by watching the news on a different channel, where sensationalism took a back seat to truer reporting. The lesson learned? All reporting is edited. All tales told are embellished. It is, again, part of being not just a social creature, but one with linguistic abilities.

So, these doctored pictures can only be called Art. We shouldn't let that bring down the entire field of photography; let's just try to categorize these works in their proper context.
08-06-2015, 09:55 AM   #14
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,574
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
In journalism accuracy is the highest value, not interpretation, at least ideally.
True. The reason I think sholtzma was okay in the way he cropped his pic was because he was trying to make people think about the greater implications it implied. He wasn't shooting a strict journalism pic. Or at least I don't think he was. But even if he was taking a journalistic approach, I think he'd still be okay because he hadn't altered the basic scene. He just chose a framing that caused the photo to resonate more loudly. I recently watched the movie, "Nightcrawler" with Jake Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal plays a news videographer who covers events that happen in the dead of night. His character did all sorts of unethical stuff, but there was one scene were he had gotten inside a house where a shooting had occured and was documenting it. He sees there are bullet holes in the refrigerator and family pics stuck on the fridge with magnets. He shoots the fridge, then goes over and moves one of the family pics up next to a bullet hole to make more dramatic footage. I turned to my wife and said, "That stuff will get you fired. It's considered staging." It was moving the pic where he screwed up. If the bullet hole and picture had happened to already been next to each other and Jake framed his shot to make a larger statement about the family and the shooting...well, that's just called having a good eye.
08-06-2015, 09:58 AM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 221
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Interesting, so what you are saying is, no matter how innocent the picture, the artist is in some way responsible for every perverted response generated in the minds of deviant beholders?
No - most certainly not. Firstly this is not an abstract Rorschach blot where the observer's interpretation is everything and the original blot has no intrinsic meaning. Secondly, if the artist intended the crop to be abstract and open to interpretation, maybe that's OK if the subjects are fine with that.

Dunno man, what would the subjects in that picture say if they saw the crop? I personally would not like it if someone photographed me doing something nice but extracted a portion of the picture for allowing it to be interpreted in a way that makes me look like a not-so-nice person. A magnanimous person as a subject would likely not care, and maybe I am just insecure enough to care how my actions would be (mis)interpreted.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
discussion, dude, event, field, friend, image, person, photo, photography, pm, post, prize, thread, time, viewers
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ethics of photomanipulation DBZFYAM Photographic Industry and Professionals 16 06-21-2012 05:08 PM
Goodbye Photography. Hello Photomanipulation LeDave Photographic Technique 59 04-21-2010 07:55 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:07 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top