[Schraubstock]

Hi

This is an article which appeared in the English version of the prestigious German Spiegel Magazine.
It is an interesting read.

Growing Concern that News Photos Are Being Excessively Manipulated - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Greetings

[Kerrowdown]

As a working freelance journo, here in the UK there are very strict ethical guidelines that one must comply with, a little sharpening and contrast are about all your allowed to do to your images.

I can be called on at any time, to provide the original image files to evidence the fact of no PP enhancements. The ethics also go as far as, your not allowed to manipulate to scene of the shot, i.e. add or subtract elements or add to much bias to the scene from a particular viewpoint or lens selection.

It should in other words be a truthful representation of what was there, to let the viewer of the image deduce their own conclusions. Whilst the boundaries are often pushed to the very limits, these are the restraints one endeavours to work within.

[calsan]

Shame you can't post-process children back to life. There's no 'undo' on killing people.

[VisualDarkness]

As a working freelance journo, here in the UK there are very strict ethical guidelines that one must comply with, a little sharpening and contrast are about all your allowed to do to your images.

I can be called on at any time, to provide the original image files to evidence the fact of no PP enhancements. The ethics also go as far as, your not allowed to manipulate to scene of the shot, i.e. add or subtract elements or add to much bias to the scene from a particular viewpoint or lens selection.

It should in other words be a truthful representation of what was there, to let the viewer of the image deduce their own conclusions. Whilst the boundaries are often pushed to the very limits, these are the restraints one endeavours to work within.

Is it okay to do things that they did with analog? Dodging and burning edges and faces seems to have been very common back in the days, so was things like unsharp mask. Heck, they even mixed different solutions and experimented with time and temperature to change colors and contrast to their liking. That sounds close to what's being discussed here.

[jamarley]

Is it okay to do things that they did with analog? Dodging and burning edges and faces seems to have been very common back in the days, so was things like unsharp mask. Heck, they even mixed different solutions and experimented with time and temperature to change colors and contrast to their liking. That sounds close to what's being discussed here.

No it is not/was not okay to do these things if the intent is/was to document reality. Bear in mind there's a difference between Art and Journalism.

[VisualDarkness]

No it is not/was not okay to do these things if the intent is/was to document reality. Bear in mind there's a difference between Art and Journalism.

I recently saw a documentary of old photojournalists and they dodged and burned at least. Do you know what the limitations was for solutions, temperature and time for developing?

[Kerrowdown]

Is it okay to do things that they did with analog? Dodging and burning edges and faces seems to have been very common back in the days

It was the same rules then as now, I'm old enough to have worked in both film and now digital.

I'm sure what you say, plus also a great many other things went on too, to create that extra bit sensationalism to perhaps what would have been otherwise a dull event.

Here's the but and it's a big one, if caught out and it became serious enough, it could potentially have cost you your job, your press credentials, your professional associations and possibly the wroth of the judiciary.

Like everything else in life, you must let you conscience be your guide and strive to be professional at all times. But hey, maybe that's just me, cos I'm old school and believed and still do in these values.

---

Last edited by Kerrowdown; 05-09-2013 at 07:25 AM.

[jamarley]

I recently saw a documentary of old photojournalists and they dodged and burned at least. Do you know what the limitations was for solutions, temperature and time for developing?

I would bet we are in agreement on this topic, but to answer your question I have no idea about those limitations. I'd expect that when those experimentations took place it was to improve procedures and any results that crossed a line into unreality were only perpetuated for non-journalistic use. Exactly where that line exists has been a discussion of great debate as long as humans have tried to codify rules for proper behavior.

[wildman]

"Enhanced Reality"

A textbook oxymoron.

[jamarley]

UPON FURTHER REVIEW
I finally got some time to read the referenced article; very interesting. It does give me pause however, especially the suggestions that photojournalism has become so competitive that enhanced is the new normal.

A quote from the article:
"You can compare the possibilities of using modern photo enhancement with the use of adjectives in a written article," says Lyon. "Some reporters exaggerate in their descriptions of events."

I believe that something is missing in this statement – the “what” in what is being reported. Imagine a report of a conversation. Would it be permissible to change the wording to lead a reader to the “truthful import” of what the participants were discussing? Shouldn't we all be left to interpret on our own?

At what point does reportage become depiction? And, at what point is the line crossed into propaganda?

Just my $.02, probably even devalued further by thinking too much .

[VisualDarkness]

UPON FURTHER REVIEW
I finally got some time to read the referenced article; very interesting. It does give me pause however, especially the suggestions that photojournalism has become so competitive that enhanced is the new normal.

A quote from the article:
"You can compare the possibilities of using modern photo enhancement with the use of adjectives in a written article," says Lyon. "Some reporters exaggerate in their descriptions of events."

I believe that something is missing in this statement – the “what” in what is being reported. Imagine a report of a conversation. Would it be permissible to change the wording to lead a reader to the “truthful import” of what the participants were discussing? Shouldn't we all be left to interpret on our own?

At what point does reportage become depiction? And, at what point is the line crossed into propaganda?

Just my $.02, probably even devalued further by thinking too much .

I don't think you took it too far, it's very interesting. Wiki says:
"Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed towards influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument."
If you go by that the line from journalism to propaganda has been crossed more often than not by the media. The "scandal" and "fiasco" type of news almost never leave any interpretion left to the reader or viewer, they simply provide a complete opinion ready for the person to take in. At least here in Sweden the newspaper most often provides only one view until most readers starts to see it the same way, then they shift it to the oposite to recycle the same news with the same kind of shock value it had at the start. It's like some kind of yoyo propaganda to sell loads of news to the lowest possible cost.

Sadly quick and simple for the viewer, listener and reader seems to be the rules to go by when providing journalism today.

[scratchpaddy]

A photographer's ultimate goal is not just to capture an image, but also to use that image to make the viewer feel what they felt at the scene. If you can use editing to further that goal, I see nothing wrong with it.

The problem would be if a journalist used editing to give the picture a feel which was not at all present at the scene of the picture. In that case, the picture becomes a lie, and that's definitely not a good thing. Photo editing is a tool, and like all tools, it can be used for both good and bad.

The article mentions the trend of photography "aestheticizing horror." That's hardly a modern trend. It's human nature. There are ancient cave paintings "aestheticizing horror." It sounds sickening to put it so bluntly, but people love images of explosions, violence, and dead people. It makes us want to buy newspapers and magazines and look at web pages. People want to be angry about something. It's always been this way, and it always will be. It's just easier to make and distribute these images than it was in the past.

[Smeggypants]

The mainstream media regularly breaks the moral codes when spreading it's lies. The 2003 pulling down of Saddam's statue in baghdad dollowing the US invasion is a classic example. the maisntream media portrayed the event as a moment of jubilation for ordinary Iraqis as the statue of their tyrant was pulled down and they pelted it with shoes. Nothing could be firther frmo the truth. In reality it was a CIA staged event and the Square in Baghdad was closed off to the public. Paid actors ( in the case the employees of Ahmed Chalabi ) were used to beat the statue with shoes.

Newspapers used badly photoshopped images to make the small band of pretend Iraqis look like a huger crowd....

see here


The lies of the mainstream media!! • Politics Forum • Smeggy's Forums •

never blindly believe ANYTHING you read, hear or see in the mainstream media.

[jamarley]

never blindly believe ANYTHING you read, hear or see in the mainstream media.

I never do, plus I never say never.