Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ethics in news photography is of an order of importance that most journalists miss, and is one of the reasons I am opposed to digital manipulation of documentary or news photos. My disillusionment with the news business came while I was at The Tennessean and saw at least two of my pictures flipped for better page composition (i.e. they wanted a person facing to the left instead of to the right, and would use the mirror of the image). This type of activity undermines the credibility inherent in a photograph. We use photographs to convey information because a photo is supposed to be an objective representation of a scene. There is plenty enough manipulation in the subject matter, timing, and play of the photo. There does need to be additional undermining of the photo's integrity with the frequent and unconsidered manipulation of pictures. Art photos should be designated art photos. Someone on this list discussed the advantages of masking using Photoshop, which let him brighten up the colors of a flower. While that may be a nice technique for an art photo, it has no place in a news photograph whatsoever. The world is often ugly and news or documentary photographs should show that ugliness. When we begin to "clean up" images or add to the sharpness or snappiness of a scene, we risk losing all credibility. Because I know of the ease of manipulation of photographs (see the National Geographic cover with the relocated pyramids) I look at modern photographs with a heavy dose of salt. With easy manipulation tools many photographers have lost sight of the importance of content and accuracy. Rather than throw away a picture because it just didn't work right, they save it in the digital darkroom. It's a quick fix that has cost photojournalism much of the credibility it once had. - --Frank - --- Harrison McClary <harrison@mcclary.net> wrote: > On 9/14/99 8:46 AM ewelch@ponyexpress.net wrote > > >Second of all, doesn't this question (which is why > I'm probably reacting to > >it in such a manner) call into question Eddie > Adams' integrity? He said it, > >he won a Pulitzer. It's his picture. Period. > Ninety-nine percent of the > >photojournalists out there working on that level > are trustworthy on such a > >topic. > > > >Or for that matter the credibility, and competence, > of editors at AP and > >the Pulitzer judges? > > Good point Eric....I have been thinkiing the same > thing but have gotten > tired of arguing constantly with people who think we > are all unethical > SOBs....most news photographers have very strong > ethical convictions > concerning their work. > > On a different note I was talking to a very good > friend of mine in > Houston (he is also a photographer) just a few > minutes ago and he > mentioned that his assistant worked with Eddie Adams > last week. Said his > assistant was a little dissapointed as most "big > name" photographers > travel with a big entorge and a big set up of > lights....Eddie showed up > just himself, one case of lights and one case for > camera gear...travels > very light. Said he was a supper nice fellow and > good to work with. > > Harrison McClary > email: harrison@mcclary.net > http://www.mcclary.net > preview my book: http://www.volmania.com > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com