In this video we will take a look at ethics and how photography is used. This is an interesting debate and being both an art and a science there has always been the age old argument of truth vs beauty.
The Economist story:
Narciso Contreras / AP
Historical Work:
Gustave Le Grey
Oscar Rejlander
Henry Peach Robinson
Remember to subscribe
Follow us on social!
Twitter:
Facebook:
Pinterest:
And get on our mailing list to stay up to date on photography news and the latest episodes:
Thanks for watching – if you like this video, remember to share it with your friends!
Ted Forbes
The Art of Photography
3100 Main St #135
Dallas, Texas 75226
#photography
#nofilter
#photojournalism
As you said, as soon as you take an image it is only a representation. News orgs get to make their own rules. I don't like what happened in the Economist example, the Syria example seems unfair to the photographer. If the ap feels that strongly photographers should just submit their raw images. I consider my own work to be "historical fiction" unless otherwise noted.
Only the truth can be beautiful.
What is Truth vs. Beauty, when we can't agree what either of those things are?
Ted, I know I'm late on adding this but I was just watching this and here's my two cents worth. The manipulation begins before we ever pick up the camera. When we envision the shot, decide on exposure, decide one what to include or leave out. Matthew Brady, Ansel Adams, and Cartier-Bresson may never used a clone tool, but each made significant choices about what they created. Even the decision on when to release the shutter was in effect a manipulation of the photo. Enough said. Thank you.
It’s not rocket science. Photojournalism should be as accurate as possible. Changing the detail in the rocks of the fighter image didn’t change the truth in the intent of the photo. For artistic work, photographers should have free range. It’s knowing which type you’re looking at that should be evident to the viewer to accurately asses what is being looked at.
Yes
There seems to be a cler line to what is acceptable or not…at least in my mind. In photojurnalisam, anything that may lead a reader to a different conclusion or emotion should be a no no. Done in camera or in post. Like that boy sleeping between the graves or that Obama image. On the soldier image i see no real difference nor do i feel missguided or lied to. Not the case with othet 2 images mentioned. Photographers should be ok in terms of framing shots and leaveing stuff out as they are the ones telling a story so they get to decide what is important or not. In art photography i think everything is allowed. Composits, cutouts, color or light manipulation…you name it. As that is about invisioning an image and then making it come to life. Quite a satisfying thing really. But what abaout fashion editorials or portraits of famous people? Not a single one of them is made without the liquify tool and skin softening. As it is not a part of the art world it should be a big no no. But it's not. And by doing that we have created many generations of people with completely abnormal definitions of beauty standards and desired phisical attributes. Simply by telling them lies.
Photographers find reality boring.
@Ted Forbes I think what a lot of photographer's do is let their personal opinions affect the photo. Now I am not saying that I'm not susceptible to this l. I wish some would try to remain open in any given situation and try and show "truth"? (Not sure if that's the right word)
To be honest that image on the Economist is fine by me. Because Obama WAS standing there in thought or discussing something, and that WAS him and the background. – If only it were shot from another angle and those people weren't there it would've pretty much been that picture anyway. – The edit isn't that extreme that it's shocking or that you'd feel cheated. – Also, I find that it pretty much works like putting a catchy title on something, in the same way you form an image to represent what the content of the magazine or book or movie is about. – That one picture doesn't matter, in my opinion. – Now, if they were to alter all the pictures inside as well, that's a much bigger problem. – But who complains, apart from that it's fictional, about an edited together movie cover or poster… Same thing, it's the front cover of a product. – And yes, sure, it's photojournalism and that should be about reality, but in terms of the media (as in an image on their product), they've just Photoshopped a nice cover to put on the stands. – I don't see a big problem with that.
Great analysis, really teaches photography with class and ethics
Reminds me of CNN fabricating a Muslim protest to terrorism in London by gathering a small crowd (no more than 20) and framing the video to look like hundreds.
I am very grateful you opened this discussion because I've been wondering where that line is and the ethics of post production.
When you first mentioned 'the moment you take the image, it stops being real,' I started to protest. Then, I recalled several recent incidents where an edited clip was used to advance a political agenda, only to find out later the clip was grossly out of context. A picture is only from a certain point of view. Just like a witness, the picture can only show a limited perspective of an event. Pictures are also limited because they are two dimensional — there is no sound, smell, or other sensory input to convey the whole meaning. Email is also two dimensional, and we all know recipients who added, assumed, or expected connotations and emotion that simply was not present in the email. People can similarly "read" into photos emotion or a message that isn't there or unintended by the photographer.
Unfortunately, I don't think we will be any more successful in educating the public at large to the limitations of photography as a medium than we are in educating them about the limitations of email.
In one sense, I can't help but think we are cheating when we compare our dehazed, color-corrected (enhanced?), re-balanced, and corrected photos to those of a great photographer like Edward Steichen. He had to get everything right at the point when he took the photo, manually controlling every aspect of the image. Isn't that kind of like allowing athletes on steroids to compete with those who are clean?
Does that mean we have to act like Luddites, refusing to accept any technology developed after some arbitrary point in time? If art has intrinsic value, whether as entertainment or education or culture, why not exploit every technical advantage available to improve the experience and work?
My own weak attempts at answering are limited to the idea we need to be up front about the differences. Like golfers, we're being given a handicap. That is fine as long as everybody knows. If we compare Steichen's photo of men praying on a bombed out carrier during World War II to a modern image of Marines praying before entering Fallujah, we should be honest about how advanced technology helped the modern photographer.
I think the location of the "line" is heavily influenced by the purpose of the photograph. Nobody questions an artist like Salvador Dali or Pablo Picasso "manipulating" clocks sliding off of tables or bombs falling from the sky to convey the deeper message of their artwork.
Photographs presented as news is another matter. Recent cases of the media staging events for dramatic effect (CNN), heavily editing audio tapes (NBC), or using special effects (NBC Dateline) are beyond misleading. The fake imagery is propaganda presented as objective journalism. I have an expectation (however forlorn) of objectivity from journalists. At the very least, they should be up front with their audience about how they edited or manipulated the imagery.
Thanks again for the discussion. I hope we can further explore this topic.
Beauty, always.
this touches on very frustrating issue with photography we have today absolutely agree on the fact the the very act of taking a photograph is already a manipulation that alters the very fabric of reality, now the question is where is the line between altered and non altered image? as the very core of today's technology relies on the digital processing of the light information that's being collected, turned into the digital signature which is already artifact than depending on the camera / software it goes into further processing and lets say new technology will offer cameras that will automatically remove unwanted subjects or automatically adjust contrast areas from the scene will that be a genuine photography ? In the case of the award winning photographer who lost his job over simple aesthetic manipulation to me its more of an attempt to set example for other photographers to not follow that route than a logical action its simply unethical to punish incredible story teller in such shallow manner and what about the very image editing and processing software the reputable magazines rely on are these always calibrated to "reality" ? The very act of taking a photo is an act of altering the reality so everything that it comes with it is manipulation there is no such thing as "authentic photograph" we are trying to protect reputation not the reality here.
So moral of the story is that you can be sued/fired just for using Lightroom or Photoshop lol even if it's removing a telephone wire post or something in a landscape.
Then what's the point of Lightroom and Photoshop if we can't use them for publishing our work?
I think we are way past this discussion. All media and journalism is distorted. Even footage from ISIL are manufactured and polished. There is no truth. There is no Beauty. There is only ugliness.
I think that photojournalism should represent the truth, but we have to keep in mind that even truth is in the eye of a beholder. if there had been 5 photographers in that area taking pics from 5 different angles, we would have seen 5 very different truths…
Every aspect of a picture is a manipulation of the truth, down to its very core. when we choose where to stand and face the camera, we are choosing to ignore everything else behind you. when you compose your picture you are choosing whatyou want to be seen in your picture. Which lens you use also affects your field of view, which affects the "truth". What about depth of field? isn't that manipulating the truth? not to mention everything else Like contrast, color correcting, sharpening etc.
in the first picture, he could have achieved a very similar image had he used a longer lens (or zoomed in) and stepped a little to the right. What it be manipulating the truth had he done that? if removing two people from the image using cropping after the fact, would it somehow be okay if he did it in camera using composition/lens adjustments (moving around/zooming)
on the second picture, he could have zoomed in and recomposed his shot to get the camera out of the frame. Same question stands, would moving around and zooming in magically have made it more "truthful" than editing the camera out? If he wanted the camera out of his framehe could have moved or zoomed in, but wouldn't that be "lying" as well?
I think the line doesn't get drawn on whether or not a photo was manipulated but rather if the image is representative of the scene as seen through the eyes of the person/people there. Without getting political, even the stories of the people there would be completely different coming from the ally or the enemy (in cases of war). So who's story is the truth?
Going back to photos, let's imagine two photographers were there art the oil spill, it is very possible for one photographer to capture his image as the unedited original image showing the 3 people and for the second shooter (standing in a different position) to have gotten the edited and cropped image showing him alone. Which image is the truth then?
Again, the truth is representative of the story being told. there are no facts in a photograph because every from the moment you decide to take a photo is manipulating the truth. I think it is reasonable to edit up to the point where it is still depicting the scene .
For example if I take 10 pictures of a beggar in New York city and in my last pic of the ten, the moment I take the picture a pigeon flies by in between and 1/4 of my left frame is now occupied by a white and gray blurry blob. Is that a wasted picture? Do I now only have 9 images to show? or do I crop the image to remove the pigeon? isn't omitting the picture as a whole manipulating the truth, add the viewer will never know that a pigeon was there a part of the scene.
Lastly, I don't think that the editors of a magazine should be able to make edits or alterations, as usually they are not the ones art the scene. The photographers were there and could better paint a picture and should not give that power to a suit behind a desk.
Top video as usual, great work, thanks Ted! I guess it is precisely due to the technical advancement of photography and the very easy editing available to all that makes alterations a difficult thing. Where do you draw the line? What is benign editing and what is falsificiation? I have no idea how to define those categories. It is a pity though when a good photographer is pushed by the competititon to make a basically useless alteration to a photograph just to be able to better sell the picture.
While in the Army one of my leaders used to say "It's not a lie, but the truth changes." This used to bug me and often times still does… but I feel it fits in this topic of discussion.