FWIW, there is a code of ethics for photojournalism.
https://nppa.org/code_of_ethics
In part it explains WHY manipulation of images is not allowed in
photojournalism:
Visual journalists operate as trustees of the public. Our primary role
is to report visually on the significant events and varied viewpoints in
our common world. Our primary goal is the faithful and comprehensive
depiction of the subject at hand. As visual journalists, we have the
responsibility to document society and to preserve its history through
images.
Photographic and video images can reveal great truths, expose wrongdoing
and neglect, inspire hope and understanding and connect people around
the globe through the language of visual understanding. Photographs can
also cause great harm if they are callously intrusive or are manipulated.
On 1/24/2014 4:35 PM, Bob W wrote:
This is a straw man argument, because nobody claims that the whole
journalistic process is objective. It has never claimed to be
objective. What honourable journalists (and there are plenty of them)
strive for is to be an honest witness.
B
On 24 Jan 2014, at 21:09, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Mark Roberts <[email protected]>
That's where this discussion is going astray: No one expects
a photograph to represent the unaltered truth, but they do
expect it to represent an unaltered *photograph*.
Well I don't have that expectation. I expect that the image
accurately conveys the message, not whether it has been altered
in some minor fashion or not. That's me though. :)
Yes. That's you. This isn't about you. Or me. It's about the
public's expectations, editors' expectations (and demands) and
the Associated Press's expectations and the requirements
stipulated in their contracts.
I think the only expectation the public at large has is that the
news be accurate. I don't believe that the public explicitly (or
implicitly) has the expectation that each and every photo be
unaltered, especially where it doesn't matter. The public
apparently likes Instagram.
In your response, you've clipped where I wrote:
"I do understand the principle, no alterations = no questions as
to legitimacy for any given image, and of course as you pointed
out later. he did not fulfill his contract. So I have no argument
there.".
This is an example that works to illustrate a point, one we're
both probably trying to make Mark, just from slightly different
views.
By your omission, people could think that I wasn't agreeing with
you on those points, when in reality I was.
My point is that the objectivity of the whole journalistic process
is questionable, not just the visual component. And while an
agreed upon rule was violated, which was wrong for the photographer
to do, it's hypocritical to take the photographer to task, and then
pretend to have journalistic integrity. If one can't accept a
photograph that was altered in a very trivial way irrelevant to the
story, because it lacks integrity somehow, then they better damn
well go back and make sure the FOV, shooting angle, DOF (don't want
to blur out pertinent background details) and everything else tells
the whole story. Then make sure the written word tells the whole
truth fairly without omissions.
Referencing the Bible, Jesus accused the Pharisees of 'straining
out the gnat from their drink, while gulping down the camel'...
'Cleaning the outside of the cup while the inside is dirty'. -
Matthew 23:24
That's what this looks like to me. Focusing on a nit while
ignoring the whole bigger picture of whether 1) other unaltered
photos present a biased or cropped view of reality and 2) whether
the reporting behind the scene does the same.
I don't want to belabor it anymore, I understand the principle
that journalistically an unaltered photo may meet a higher standard
(not that it necessarily conveys a point more accurately or
honestly).
I found these comments on dpreview of interest (and of course this
is a subject open to huge debate):
"One tends to think of journalistic photographic manipulation as
being something only present in the digital age. Its not
true...for example...one of the famous images of students killed in
a protest at Ohio State University in the late 60's had an
inconvenient pole in the background behind a devastated student,
which was removed in editing and that has become a famous and
accepted image in the history of journalism. In Nachtwey's movie
War Photographer, Nachtwey gives instructions to his printer to
dodge, burn and highlight areas of an image to focus attention or
create effect. That's also manipulation. I think it's really a
no-no to alter the content of an image so as to lie - as in adding
extra victims or body parts - but this edit has not taken away from
the image or created a visual lie, the debate is precious and silly
and should be dictated by common sense. The whole underlying intent
was to clean up an otherwise good news image." - Peter Bendheim
"This is a funny topic I always enjoy when it 'crops' up. The
assumption that what a photographer does with a camera is
objective and absolute and deserving of instant trust, while what
he/she does with a cloning/healing tool in Photoshop is immediately
dishonest is so laughably last century. Cropping also removes
elements from an image, choosing your moment so your photo tells a
particular angle of the story is part of shooting, but that's all
ok by these foolish rules. It's splitting hairs and it's arrogance
of the highest order." - Peter Stuckings.
I agree he broke his contract. I agree he altered an image. Under
the terms of the contract was that wrong? Yes it was.
In the big scheme of things though... ?
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
