POSING QUESTIONS OF PHOTOGRAPHIC ETHICS

[surapon]

Dear Teachers and Friends.
I just run in to this great article , after read--- I would like to know your opinion= Can we compare the Digital Post processing in this Time with the thing that we do in the darkroom 20-80 years ago?


http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/posing-questions-of-photographic-ethics/?WT.mc_id=2015-KWP-AUD_DEV&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=AUDDEVREMARK&kwp_0=20768&kwp_4=134901&kwp_1=157527&_r=0

Thank you, Sir/ Madame.
Surapon

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

its one thing to take a portrait and smooth some lines add some highlights. but to report something that is not true by blocking out adding items is not right as a art form we can manipulate photos but to clamed its what the camera saw as the photo was taken your raw files better be close to what you want published. yes you can crop but disclose it adjust contrast shadow fine but disclose it in outer words don't lie about the photo

 

[wsmith96]

In regards to photo journalism, I think that changing an image to create more drama, suspense, action, etc., or faking a scene so the photographer can "get the shot" isn't ethical. Photo journalism, which is what is discussed in the article, should capture real life events, struggles, achievements, exploration, etc. If the photo's are altered, or staged, then you are moving into art photography where the photographer is controlling the image and not life. But, that's my opinion.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Pretty much everything done with digital was first done in a darkroom. The big difference is the skill level and equipment required to do it. Manipulating color images in a dark room was very difficult.

Various filters were used on cameras as a easier way of achieving some effects. In some cases, its still true that filters on a lens do a better or much easier job.

 

[old-pr-pix]

As a working public relations photographer in the film era, I admit many of the shots I took for publication were manipulated in some way. Many were staged (i.e. I positioned people in the shot, moved props, etc.). Many shots were "grip & grins" where two people are seen holding a huge check/plaque/certificate, etc., shaking hands (the grip) and smiling at the camera (the grin). It was obvious they were staged. Other shots used more subtle manipulation - shallow DOF to blur distracting background, selective FOV, telephoto to compress things that weren't that close, etc. The other common manipulation was dodge & burn in printing to control local contrast for better reproduction.

All these were considered necessary for the best possible representation for a client. Obviously more dramatic changes like removing something from an image was more difficult with film, especially when meeting tight publication deadlines. It just was impractical to do anything like that for timely news stories.

It is national & international breaking news type stories where photography influences public perception, and the public has the right to expect the highest integrity from those photographers and their images. Unfortunately we live in an era where so many publications tend to have an agenda and not just report the news. Plus image manipulation can be done nearly instantly in the field with a smartphone. The temptation to tell a story photographically with the "right" spin via manipulation is always there and so easy to do.

 

[tolusina]

Dear Mr. Surapon,

If the intent is art, do whatever you like with no limits.

If shooting journalistically, nothing but color or exposure corrections of the photos that were recorded by the sensor should even be considered.
I'd think HDR combinations of multiple exposures of identical scenes should be allowed but I expect disagreement as I'm probably wrong on this point.

Then there's weddings. In a sense, weddings are journalism, yet blemish removal is pretty much expected.

So, the shots in the article with elements manipulated violate all the rules of journalism as I imagine them, the photographers that submitted them deserved the consequences.
The posed boy with the toy gun is not journalism either, nor the added smoke, moved canon balls etc..

Then there's marketing. Posing a product to present it at its best seems ok, manipulating the product to intentionally misrepresent is lying. Is it ethical to increase a model's bust line to enhance the appearance of whatever garment or cosmetic is being advertised ethical? Dunno.

Then there is this iconic photo, one well known by most in the U.S. .........

Taken 70 years ago, it was cast into a statue, erected and dedicated at the Marine Corps Memorial in 1954.
Controversy remains over this scene. Seems it was the second flag raised on Mt, Suribachi by U.S. Marines during the Battle of Iwo Jima.
In one sense, this photo was posed by virtue of being the second Flag raised.
But the (controversial) reason for the second Flag raising was (controversial) not for the purpose of posing.
Seems (controversial) some REMF that had not been part of the Battle, seeing the original as he came ashore, wanted the original himself.
Others that had been in battle disagreed, decided to raise a second that the REMF was welcome to.

I just came across this one in my image search, never seen it before......

So there's another question raised. Is the famous, iconic photo journalism? Should it have ever been published? Should it have become symbolic of the Marine Corps?
I sure cannot presume to have an answer.

 

[Don Haines]

There is art, and there is journalism. In art, we manipulate like crazy to create the image we desire. In journalism we limit our manipulations to framing the image to try to accurately report on something. Adding and deleting are changing the truth and as such, are not acceptable.

The following image, if used as an art print, is perfectly acceptable. If I were to use it in a news article on declining tourism, it would be a fraud and I should be fired.

(unedited photo at the bottom)

 

[surapon]

Thanks you, Sir, Dear Teachers and Friends.
Now I under stand from your Comments that, Two kinds of Photos = 1) The Arts work that we will use Can be Modified as/per our heart and our feeling of creation, but 2) for Journalistic Photography Such as the NEWS MEDIA = Minimum modification for look better, BUT NOT CHANGE THE REAL STORY TELLER BY OMIT THE THINGS THAT WE DO NOT LIKE.
Thank you, Sir/ Madame.
Have a great work week.
Surapon