From: pnstenquist
---- "John Francis" <jo...@panix.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 07:12:48PM -0400, John Sessoms wrote:
There's a continuum of purpose for photographic images. That
purpose
matters in so far as the ethics of manipulation. Context is
important.
At the PJ end, manipulation of the image is UN-ETHICAL,
although
most
images will be tweaked to some degree - levels, contrast,
curves -
to
make up for the deficiencies of the camera or the
photographer's
nerve.
It makes the image more viewable.
I'm cool with that as long as nothing is removed or added
that
wasn't in
the original scene.
Photojournalism should be reportage, not editorial comment.
The
image
should be as "true" as possible to the scene the
photojournalist was
attempting to capture.
That's too dogmatic for me (even though I'm at the PJ end of the
scale). I'll edit an image to remove distracting elements as long
as they are only peripheral to the story being told - telegraph
wires, a garish item in the background, an extraneous hand
visible at the edge of the frame .. In other words I might edit
to achive the image I was *attempting* to capture, even if I
didn't actually achieve that image in-camera.
I had to shoot three men for a magazine article the other day. It was
just one of numerous shots I had to take, and I was in a hurry, so I
exposed only two frames. One guy had his eyes closed in the first. In
the second, another guy looked at a different photographer. So I
replaced his head after copying it from the other image. I can't
think of any valid reason why I wouldn't do that. It was
undetectable, BTW:-)
Just because it's in a magazine doesn't make it photojournalism. From my
point of view, that's P.R. photography.
What "It was undetectable, BTW" says to me is that it's OK to tell a lie
with a photograph if you think you won't get caught.
The National Press Photographers Association has an on-line training
series about "Ethics in the Age of Digital Photography":
http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/self-training_resources/eadp_report/index.html
I quote from the section Changes to Photographs:
"I do not think the public cares if it is a little lie or a big lie As
far as they are concerned, once the shutter has been tripped and the
moment has been captured on film, in the context of news, we no longer
have the right to change the content of the photo in any way. Any change
to a news photo - any violation of that moment - is a lie. Big or small,
any lie damages your credibility."
"... the documentary photograph is a very powerful thing and its power
is based on the fact that it is real. The real photograph gives us a
window on history; it allows us to be present at the great events of our
times and the past. It gets its power from the fact that it represents
exactly what the photographer saw through the medium of photography."
It's also a good way to end up unemployed. Your editors may accept it
for a while, but if someone ever complains, you know who's going to take
the fall.
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/08/reuters.html
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/08/ethics.html
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
