[Leica] Photoshop vs Photojournalism

[gcr910 at gmail.com (Greg Rubenstein)]

Maybe I've missed something in this thread, but even back when I was a
photojournalist weren't we marketing and publishing our vision/points
of view -- as well as that of our editors? Weren't we the
temperamental "artistes" and consciences of the hard-boiled newsroom.
(Remember the TV show, "Lou Grant," the photographer, "Animal"?)

We shot and used leading lines; light, dramatic or flat; to show the
subject, story, event as we saw it or, perhaps, as our editor, art
director or publisher may have instructed us. Or, given the number of
shots we'd submit, they chose the one that best fit their points of
view.

In the darkroom, we dodged, burned and balanced contrast and color as
best we could to further help viewers see what we saw, or what the
editors and art directors wanted us to show. Remember the heavy
burning at the edges so stylish back in the 70s? Again, the choice of
what to run was often someone else's -- and may not have quite
represented the event though it was "honest" in the sense that it was
something we saw.

I even remember the days of photo illustrations, having used Exacto
knives, multiple exposures and such to created these images myself --
and CLEARLY LABELING them as such at the start of a caption and in
credit lines. And, besides, even with Photoshop, who today can create
the magical photo images/illustrations people such as Jerry Uelsmann
and Michael Tcherevkov (check both spellings) turned out?

While Photoshop as a tool has made it easier for people --
photographers, editors, artists and such -- to mislead and cheat, I
find our caterwauling about purity a bit disturbing and hypocritical
in light of what we have done -- and do -- when shooting film, when
processing film and when printing negatives.

I do not excuse adding missiles, intensifying smoke, changing the
color of swimming trunks or putting one person's head on another body,
but I must wonder if my take on an event by the angle from which I
shot, the light I preferred (or added with a flash), the editor's
instructions I followed, or burning I did is a heck of a lot more
honest and pure than what we see now.

A case in point, though I cannot find the URL, was an article in Photo
District News a few years back that, essentially, asked whether
demonstrations caused photographers of if photographers caused
demonstrations. A photo of Palestinian demonstrators lobbing Molotov
Cocktails was shown from two angles. The widely published photo showed
members of an angry mob throwing  homemade bombs seemingly at targets.
A shot from another angle showed a gaggle of photographers, and
smiling (maybe even amused) bystanders watching the photographers and
"the mob" throwing the cocktails into a rubble-strewn lot. Both photos
were accurate in what they showed, but how accurate was the message
sent in that example?

The issue we've been discussing and will continue to discuss is a heck
of a lot bigger than Photoshop. Photoshop, more partisan people
(photographers included) and agenda-drive publications simply make it
easier to cheat now than before. And, as before, the cheaters are
generally outed -- maybe even more quickly today because of Photoshop
and a technically savvy viewing public -- but not before the
credibility of "honest" photographers and others is damaged.

End of rant.

Greg Rubenstein