Re: [Leica] Re: Photojournalistic integrity and masking

["Joe Codispoti" <joecodi@thegrid.net>]

While in photo school, one day a student asked the instructor "how far could
one go in using the retouching brush". "Hell" said the instructor. "if you
think you are that good, you can put the camera away and build me the whole
picture with your spotting brush".
During the OJ trial, Time magazine printed OJ's photo on the cover after
darkening it considerably (no doubt to make him look more sinister).

Certainly it is unethical to manipulate an image with the intent of
maligning the intended victim but quite acceptable and desirable if not
compulsory to manipulate a portrait as necessary to the satisfaction of the
client.

A local photojournalist found himself in a lot of trouble when a published
photo of an auto accident scene showed in the foreground a beer can which
may or may not have been part of the accident. He was accused of *placing*
the can in order to make the photo more dramatic.

The photojournalist must be impartial in his/her portrayal of a given
circumstance.
The rest of us are free to dramatize a photo by the use of filters,
selective focus, computers, and chemical devices in the name of artistic
license.

Joseph Codispoti



- ----- Original Message -----
From: Mark E Davison <Mark_E_Davison@email.msn.com>
To: Leica User Group <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 1:52 PM
Subject: [Leica] Re: Photojournalistic integrity and masking


> Frank Conley wrote:
>
> "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."
>
> In general I agree with the sentiment expressed here. However, in the
> particular photograph where I employed masking to selectively accentuate
> color, I was simply restoring color contrast which appeared in the slide
> (and in the original scene) but had been reduced in the scanning process.
> This type of correction would not be out of place in a Sunset magazine
> article on gardening, for example.  The orange of poppies is amazingly
> saturated in real life too.
>
> In the days where black and white photography was common in
photojournalism,
> did the photographers manipulate the prints (i.e. with burning and
dodging)
> to heighten the drama?  Based on what I have seen in Life during the years
I
> was growing up, I would have to assume so. Can any of you oldtimers
> enlighten us on this?
>
> It seems that with the advent of color slide film, a new purism has
> descended on photography, where any manipulation of the image (beyond what
> is injected optically by filters, or mechanically by the scanning and
> halftoning processes) is considered to be unacceptable or unethical.
>
> I would think that there is an ethical level of image manipulation, which
> heightens the visual impact without doing disservice to the truth.
>
> By the way, I find that the use of highly saturated color slide films is,
by
> itself, sometimes objectionable. Call it "Fujification of the evidence."
>
>
>
> Mark Davison
>
>
>
>
>
>
>