RE: [Leica] Photo scandal at National Geographic!!!

[Tim Atherton <tim@KairosPhoto.com>]

> Anyway, I disagree that the idea of unposed photos and unretouched
> photos is a fallacy or false God. It is, in fact, the only thing that
> will maintain the credibility of working photojournalists. Of course,
> people can make it a false god and obsess on the details while missing
> the "big picture." But every time a photojournalist manipulates a
> situation he is photographing, or removes a telephone wire from behind
> George Bush's head just because it makes him look like he wasn't
> watching his backgrounds, the line is being stepped over that will ruin
> our profession. I know it happens every day. Hacks take the easy way
> out. Editors demand cheating from photographers they would never allow
> to writers. Photography still has to pull more than its own weight.
> It's one of the reasons I got out.

The reason I say that Eric, is that even more so in the digital era now upon
us, more and more focus is being placed upon this - almost obsessively so,
while there seems to be a broad ignoring and ignorance of the falsehood that
can be (and almost always is) to found in a photograph due to the definition
made before the shutter is triggered, as well as the decisions made
(editorially) once the picture ahs been made.

The former have always been present, yet even more so today seem widely
ignored. The myth of objectivity seems to be being pushed more and more.

A concrete example of this in microcosm (mirroring in some ways how it works
in wider society) are the significant number of instances where embedded
photojournalists in Iraq chose not to take certain photographs because of
the (usually negative) way they would portray the troops they were embedded
with. This is apart from the very broad forms of self censorship - either
pre-shutter click or post-production that seem to have been taken in terms
of what not to photograph and what not to print.

In a very specific way, I think this highlights the wider every day decision
that are made in photojournalism. Photojournalists decide every day to
photograph something or not photograph it, and then when they do, how to
frame it. And what comes into play when they do that are there own personal
beliefs and biases, the pressures form their editor (in Tony Blair terms -
to sex something up) or even broader pressures from the community they live
and work in.

While I am not saying that these issues cannot be overcome to one degree or
another, my point is that they are more often than not just ignored, and
certainly rarely questioned. The myth of the objective observer being rolled
out to counter them, though usually, by focussing on the much more concrete
and easily grasped issue of manipulating images, these things don't usually
even have to be addressed. (how many of the journalists and photojournalists
who have admitted not reporting things during the Iraq war have been
sanctioned and fired - more often the response has been "oh, that's
understandable" - mainly because the view coincides with the broader view
of society - that is. "we don't want to see what our boys really do when
they go to war".

Contrary to popular belief, photographs rarely tell the truth, (and
certainly not the whole truth and nothing but the truth) and many outright
lie - but in most cases, that rarely comes about through actual manipulation
of the photograph - either in the darkroom or in Photoshop. It happens
either before the shutter is clicked, or on the editors desk.

But photographs can be honest.

Discussing this on the NPPA-L recently, someone shared the following lovely
example from their training - all manipulating the reality of what was in
front of them - all of the manipulation before the shutter was ever
released:

"We all have our personal biases, how do we keep these out of our work and
still seek interesting images that convey what we need to the public? I was
taught in photo school those 17 years ago that if I take a long (wide) shot
of the protesting masses I will show that there are only a handful of
protestors at the gates. A handful of protestors are likely not going to
sway the status quo on any issue, but will be dismissed as trouble making
rabble. If on the other hand, I shoot tight in the same crowd with a medium
to long tele, the crowd suddenly seems much larger or at the very least of
an indeterminable number. This can be portrayed as a menacing force to be
resisted or a populous uprising of status quo to be joined. Further, if I
shoot from low angle or tilted angle and make my prime subjects the all
black clad faceless Anarchists with anger twisting their visible features, I
will portray a much different TRUTH of the same protest than if I shoot the
mother with children all with peace signs and flowers painted on their happy
beaming little faces. If I don't show the police helping the crowd and
smiling but instead only show them in full riot gear and snarling on the
clash front, but don't manipulate the images at all after the fact, am I
still showing TRUTH? Even if we've done the improbable in the short time
allotted and have covered it all, only a few shots get chosen of space
necessity. The same choices are made all over again by the editor or
director. What if they believe a different truth and choose only to show
that?"

tim



- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html