Capturing-- or creating-- the too-perfect picture
June 14, 2016 8:41 AM Subscribe
Photographer Steve McCurry, who made his name working with National
Geographic and is perhaps most famous for his portrait of an Afghan
girl, was criticized by NYT Magazine writer Teju Cole for being
boring, too-perfect, and overly nostalgic. There are some who might disagree with or at least complicate this criticism. But his work has now come
under fire for the level of digital manipulation he uses, as astute
observers have found him editing out background elements or even
people.
This raises new questions about the difference between
photojournalism and art and the ethics of digital manipulation. In his defense,
he claims to be a "visual storyteller" and not a photojournalist.
Whatever he is, he is probably not a jerk -- though he is provoking
some very interesting conversations about his chosen medium of
expression.
(With thanks to The Online Photographer blog and its excellent coverage of this. The comment sections on that blog tend to be substantive, knowledgeable, and thoughtful, so check them out in the links above)
This raises new questions about the difference between
photojournalism and art and the ethics of digital manipulation. In his defense,
he claims to be a "visual storyteller" and not a photojournalist.
Whatever he is, he is probably not a jerk -- though he is provoking
some very interesting conversations about his chosen medium of
expression.
(With thanks to The Online Photographer blog and its excellent coverage of this. The comment sections on that blog tend to be substantive, knowledgeable, and thoughtful, so check them out in the links above)
Honestly, editing digital images is only a problem if the person taking the photo claims he or she is NOT editing them.
posted by HuronBob at 8:54 AM on June 14, 2016 [42 favorites]
posted by HuronBob at 8:54 AM on June 14, 2016 [42 favorites]
McCurry’s career started in photojournalism, a field where evidence of manipulation beyond standard color correction and processing can break a photographer’s career
Even the process of using a camera manipulates, structures, changes the 'picture' beyond what is real - it's a matter of what level of manipulation we are willing to accept. "Standard" color correction is ok, so what is standard?
If I use a computer to eliminate a piece of trash, that's manipulation. If I take a step to the left and block the trash with the subject, that's 'real.'
We expect pictures to deliver accuracy, but we don't even know what 'accurate' means.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:58 AM on June 14, 2016 [85 favorites]
Even the process of using a camera manipulates, structures, changes the 'picture' beyond what is real - it's a matter of what level of manipulation we are willing to accept. "Standard" color correction is ok, so what is standard?
If I use a computer to eliminate a piece of trash, that's manipulation. If I take a step to the left and block the trash with the subject, that's 'real.'
We expect pictures to deliver accuracy, but we don't even know what 'accurate' means.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:58 AM on June 14, 2016 [85 favorites]
Loving thiiiis! Thank ah-youuu!
posted by Dressed to Kill at 9:00 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by Dressed to Kill at 9:00 AM on June 14, 2016
There's many uses of photoshop to change photos that don't change the editorial content. If you want to publish a photo in a magazine or even a blog, you're going to want to adjust the white-balance and contrast, clean up the shadows and highlights, push the sharpness up and other minor corrections. Most of those are the equivalent to what photographers used to do in the darkroom and are done routinely to prepare images for publication or display.
What McCurry is criticized of doing is actually deleting, adding and changing the elements that you see in the images.
posted by octothorpe at 9:00 AM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
What McCurry is criticized of doing is actually deleting, adding and changing the elements that you see in the images.
posted by octothorpe at 9:00 AM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
Honestly, editing digital images is only a problem if the person taking the photo claims he or she is NOT editing them.
I disagree. When I see a photo, I assume that I'm seeing a thing that happened (unless of course it's an obviously fake one), and if someone is manipulating the photo in subtle ways that change what the photo is presenting, I think it's incumbent on them to say "This photo has been edited to remove people in the background" or whatever without anyone having to ask.
posted by Etrigan at 9:02 AM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
I disagree. When I see a photo, I assume that I'm seeing a thing that happened (unless of course it's an obviously fake one), and if someone is manipulating the photo in subtle ways that change what the photo is presenting, I think it's incumbent on them to say "This photo has been edited to remove people in the background" or whatever without anyone having to ask.
posted by Etrigan at 9:02 AM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
So take one of the most famous and purist photographers, Ansel Adams, I don't see the example I remember of the printing of one of his most famous photos but the number of steps to print a single photograph was insane. "full day in the darkroom for a single print" This issue is not just about "balance" but actual content, but I doubt many of the greatest photographers would refuse to use the best tools available.
“Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships"
So is removing a small distracting glitch enhancing the theme, telling "truth" more clearly, or creating a lie? And who is to decide? Truth are Lies. Black is the new White!
posted by sammyo at 9:02 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
“Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships"
So is removing a small distracting glitch enhancing the theme, telling "truth" more clearly, or creating a lie? And who is to decide? Truth are Lies. Black is the new White!
posted by sammyo at 9:02 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
DSLR cameras are made to allow you lots of leeway when shooting in RAW format. This leeway requires Photoshop, as the processing is not done on the camera but rather on a computer as a "digital darkroom." This kind of "digital manipulation" is a very far cry from the wholesale changing of images that McCurry was doing, and is more akin to "developing" the images. There is a very well-established set of guidelines for using PS, and they were violated here.
It's a true shame that "Photoshopping" has come to encompass "making an image look as good as it can while still having it be realistic and true to life" as well as "adding/subtracting things the photographer doesn't like" in addition to "wholesale changing or creation of a new reality." There is a world of difference from the former to the latter.
posted by nevercalm at 9:02 AM on June 14, 2016 [14 favorites]
It's a true shame that "Photoshopping" has come to encompass "making an image look as good as it can while still having it be realistic and true to life" as well as "adding/subtracting things the photographer doesn't like" in addition to "wholesale changing or creation of a new reality." There is a world of difference from the former to the latter.
posted by nevercalm at 9:02 AM on June 14, 2016 [14 favorites]
To step back a few years, dark rooms and sundry equipment found there as well as the chemistry and process used were and are gross equivalents of using Photoshop now. Manipulations of the photographic image is nothing new. I feel that the real issue is not technology. It's the journalistic integrity of the photographer coupled with the intent behind any manipulation. Taking some distracting object out of the background is one thing. Removing a person from a scene could be entirely different. During Stalin's day, group photos became less and less populated with each republication. Just looking at a photo, you may or may not see any manipulation. Artistic decisions versus political decisions regarding manipulation can be invisible. Maybe we need the equivalent of a "dramatic reenactment" disclaimer at the bottom of the picture?
posted by njohnson23 at 9:04 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 9:04 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
When I see a photo, I assume that I'm seeing a thing that happened (unless of course it's an obviously fake one), and if someone is manipulating the photo in subtle ways that change what the photo is presenting, I think it's incumbent on them to say "This photo has been edited to remove people in the background"
There need to be little asterisks on every wedding and portrait shot ever then. And half of Facebook/Instagram/Pinterest. And every ad. Content alteration is likely more common than not in most uses for photography, and growing even more common with the increasing use of filters and the like.
This is only an issue because he has played fast-and-loose with the boarder between photojournalist, which does have those rules, and art. And to be fair to him, if you take him at his own words, in the Time piece linked above, he's seen himself more as an artist (for whom composition alteration is 100% ok) than having the responsibility of editorial fidelity required for news.
posted by bonehead at 9:08 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
There need to be little asterisks on every wedding and portrait shot ever then. And half of Facebook/Instagram/Pinterest. And every ad. Content alteration is likely more common than not in most uses for photography, and growing even more common with the increasing use of filters and the like.
This is only an issue because he has played fast-and-loose with the boarder between photojournalist, which does have those rules, and art. And to be fair to him, if you take him at his own words, in the Time piece linked above, he's seen himself more as an artist (for whom composition alteration is 100% ok) than having the responsibility of editorial fidelity required for news.
posted by bonehead at 9:08 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
There is subjectivity built in to a photo regardless of any post manipulation. Every photo is a photographer making a decision to show something, and not show something else. Whether it's done in Photoshop, or just by choosing a composition, there is always a larger story.
posted by HumanComplex at 9:09 AM on June 14, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by HumanComplex at 9:09 AM on June 14, 2016 [17 favorites]
I'm curious what the well-established guidelines are for using PS. As a non-photographer, they seem like they should be really simple -- like, for photojournalism, anything you can do to the light levels or colour balance of the photograph as a whole is fine, but as soon as you start selecting sections to change, you're in not-okay territory. Though I realize that potentially ignores things like dodging and burning that were already a part of photography even before digital.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:11 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by jacquilynne at 9:11 AM on June 14, 2016
This is only an issue because he has played fast-and-loose with the boarder between photojournalist (which does have those rules), and art.
Oh god, I am so fucking sorry that I didn't include a disclaimer that my comment applied only to the thing we are actually discussing here. No one cares about wedding photos being photoshopped and manipulated within an inch of their lives.
posted by Etrigan at 9:11 AM on June 14, 2016 [13 favorites]
Oh god, I am so fucking sorry that I didn't include a disclaimer that my comment applied only to the thing we are actually discussing here. No one cares about wedding photos being photoshopped and manipulated within an inch of their lives.
posted by Etrigan at 9:11 AM on June 14, 2016 [13 favorites]
Cole's argument is that he's boring. To mix periods, McCurry is a Norman Rockwell, too idealized and too pretty, while Cole prefers the realism and naturalism of Degas, Raghubir Singh.
posted by bonehead at 9:13 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by bonehead at 9:13 AM on June 14, 2016
I find the choices in the "come under fire" link to be pretty interesting. The one with the kids chasing the ball through the puddle and rain is striking. At first look, I couldn't even see the difference. The difference is the missing player. That player is more directly looking at the camera and I actually find that to be a more compelling image - placing the viewer in the scene. However, I can see as a photographer, attempting to capture a scene with "purity" and a sense that the photographer is not even there, they might feel differently.
The bicycle image is definitely more compelling and striking without some of the background elements but, again, the removal of a person looking toward the photographer has been removed. It's another sign of a particular philosophy and one which may be part and parcel of the magazines to which the photographer is selling their work.
posted by amanda at 9:14 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
The bicycle image is definitely more compelling and striking without some of the background elements but, again, the removal of a person looking toward the photographer has been removed. It's another sign of a particular philosophy and one which may be part and parcel of the magazines to which the photographer is selling their work.
posted by amanda at 9:14 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Two things I really like about the Cole piece, and that exemplify his ability to argue effectively against entrenched power, are
> That he offers a counterexample of what respectful and good photography of India (at a similar level of craft) looks like,
> and that he also offers contrasting cases of what is and what ISN'T appropriation when an outsider takes on a foreign culture.
I think that his framing is important: there's representing a country with respect, even if you're not a part of it; and turning a country into an exotic visual commodity to convey something else entirely (authenticity, nostalgia, antidote to unsatisfying modern western life) to fill a need in your western, white audience.
posted by codacorolla at 9:16 AM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
> That he offers a counterexample of what respectful and good photography of India (at a similar level of craft) looks like,
> and that he also offers contrasting cases of what is and what ISN'T appropriation when an outsider takes on a foreign culture.
I think that his framing is important: there's representing a country with respect, even if you're not a part of it; and turning a country into an exotic visual commodity to convey something else entirely (authenticity, nostalgia, antidote to unsatisfying modern western life) to fill a need in your western, white audience.
posted by codacorolla at 9:16 AM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
only to the thing we are actually discussing here.
The original link, Cole's criticism, was about artistic choices. Editing for composition is common in that kind of photography. This isn't just, or even mostly about journalistic ethics.
posted by bonehead at 9:16 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
The original link, Cole's criticism, was about artistic choices. Editing for composition is common in that kind of photography. This isn't just, or even mostly about journalistic ethics.
posted by bonehead at 9:16 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wow, look closer at the bike painting, there are many elements removed and changed. A diagonal bar, background people's cloths muted, more contrast on the bike, melon cart removed, telephone pole removed. Becomes as much a painting as a photo. Or a kids visual exercise.
How many changes can you find? :-)
posted by sammyo at 9:22 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
How many changes can you find? :-)
posted by sammyo at 9:22 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm curious what the well-established guidelines are for using PS.
Reuters Issues a Worldwide Ban on RAW Photos
Reuters Issues a Worldwide Ban on RAW Photos
In future, please don’t send photos to Reuters that were processed from RAW or CR2 files. If you want to shoot raw images that’s fine, just take JPEGs at the same time. Only send us the photos that were originally JPEGs, with minimal processing (cropping, correcting levels, etc).posted by 1970s Antihero at 9:22 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Reuters Issues a Worldwide Ban on RAW Photos
lol whut
posted by entropicamericana at 9:25 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
lol whut
posted by entropicamericana at 9:25 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
The camera lens and sensor (and before the sensor, the film in the camera) are not the equivalent to the human eye, and what comes out of the camera isn't what a human eye would see -- it's what a camera would see. The camera has already made "choices" about what the image is in the design of its hardware and software. When I see a picture straight out of my camera, more often than not what the camera "saw" is not what I saw, because of the differing nature of my eye and my camera.
This is one reason I never felt that working an image in Photoshop was a priori cheating of reality. Much of the time I use Photoshop, what I'm doing is getting the picture a) back to a place that is closer to my own subjective experience of the event I've photographed, b) making the picture "readable" to people looking at the photo. In effect, making the picture subjectively more accurate to the human experience of being there for the photo. I think this sort of tweaking of a photo for "readability" is allowable for things like photojournalism.
Of course, other times I'll go into Photoshop and tweak things far beyond what could be an approximation of the human experience of an event, and move things about, use the healing tool to get rid of things I don't like, and so on. Which is also perfectly fine but I also don't pretend it's reality either. What I'm doing then isn't photojournalism. It's fiction, using photography as the medium, rather than, say, text. And this is fine, too, as long as one does not confuse or mislead the viewer about what it is.
Photojournalism isn't meant to be fiction, but it's also about choices: What to shoot, where to put the focus of the picture, how to crop the photo, how it's composed after the fact, even something like choosing whether the photo is in black or white or in color. The camera makes "choices" in its hardware and software, to be sure. But the human still points, and shoots, and tells a story. That is subjective, too.
posted by jscalzi at 9:26 AM on June 14, 2016 [25 favorites]
This is one reason I never felt that working an image in Photoshop was a priori cheating of reality. Much of the time I use Photoshop, what I'm doing is getting the picture a) back to a place that is closer to my own subjective experience of the event I've photographed, b) making the picture "readable" to people looking at the photo. In effect, making the picture subjectively more accurate to the human experience of being there for the photo. I think this sort of tweaking of a photo for "readability" is allowable for things like photojournalism.
Of course, other times I'll go into Photoshop and tweak things far beyond what could be an approximation of the human experience of an event, and move things about, use the healing tool to get rid of things I don't like, and so on. Which is also perfectly fine but I also don't pretend it's reality either. What I'm doing then isn't photojournalism. It's fiction, using photography as the medium, rather than, say, text. And this is fine, too, as long as one does not confuse or mislead the viewer about what it is.
Photojournalism isn't meant to be fiction, but it's also about choices: What to shoot, where to put the focus of the picture, how to crop the photo, how it's composed after the fact, even something like choosing whether the photo is in black or white or in color. The camera makes "choices" in its hardware and software, to be sure. But the human still points, and shoots, and tells a story. That is subjective, too.
posted by jscalzi at 9:26 AM on June 14, 2016 [25 favorites]
The original link, Cole's criticism, was about artistic choices.
And is not about manipulation of the image file at all. The closest Cole comes to that is saying that McCurry's photos are staged.
posted by Etrigan at 9:27 AM on June 14, 2016
And is not about manipulation of the image file at all. The closest Cole comes to that is saying that McCurry's photos are staged.
posted by Etrigan at 9:27 AM on June 14, 2016
Great post, cubby, and you're right, The Online Photographer is terrific. From the "not a jerk" link:
posted by languagehat at 9:30 AM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
If I were Steve McCurry, I'd embrace the new me. Revise the mission statement. I'd say to the world, Hey, you're right, I'm not a photojournalist. I used to be, and I was good at it, but lately I've become a storyteller, and I'm even better at that. My work is a lyrical, romanticized view of the exotic Third World of my imagination—my personal interpretation of how I like to look at the magical, mysterious qualities of distant lands and disappearing peoples. I used to be a reporter but then I discovered what I'm really interested in doing. My work is based on reality, and it starts out being photographic and sometimes stays that way, but I'm first and foremost a photo-illustrator and an artist.Very well put.
[...]
Just...be clear about it, is all. Don't be one thing while you let on that you're another. As a bonus, when you stand tall and walk straight, all manner of things are forgiven.
posted by languagehat at 9:30 AM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Cole: Here’s an old-timer with a dyed beard. Here’s a doe-eyed child in a head scarf. The pictures are staged or shot to look as if they were. They are astonishingly boring.
Right. And he's not saying that's wrong, ethically, he's saying that's both boring and, in the choices made by McCurry, playing to comfortable orientalist sterotypes. Those are both worse sins than manipulation. To be clear, the argument is that McCurry's faults are not that he's a visual storyteller, it's that the stories he tells are cliches and appropriative.
posted by bonehead at 9:31 AM on June 14, 2016
Right. And he's not saying that's wrong, ethically, he's saying that's both boring and, in the choices made by McCurry, playing to comfortable orientalist sterotypes. Those are both worse sins than manipulation. To be clear, the argument is that McCurry's faults are not that he's a visual storyteller, it's that the stories he tells are cliches and appropriative.
posted by bonehead at 9:31 AM on June 14, 2016
That's true (edit: that all photography is interpretation). But, if you look at the links that highlight manipulation and take note of those changes, you can see a similar agenda to what Cole is describing: to make India a picturesque object of awe, and not an actual, modern country with its own story to tell.
I don't think anyone here is really arguing that photos should be (or can be) completely objective accounts of reality. In fact, the counterexample that Cole puts into his article also seems heavily 'staged', if not in arranging the people there, then at least in how it was framed and how the woman in the red dress is positioned. However, that photo is telling a story that actually comes from modern India, and not rearranging modern India to fit a fantasy of the past.
posted by codacorolla at 9:33 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think anyone here is really arguing that photos should be (or can be) completely objective accounts of reality. In fact, the counterexample that Cole puts into his article also seems heavily 'staged', if not in arranging the people there, then at least in how it was framed and how the woman in the red dress is positioned. However, that photo is telling a story that actually comes from modern India, and not rearranging modern India to fit a fantasy of the past.
posted by codacorolla at 9:33 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
People should realize that an "off the camera" image does not exist. It takes software to take the raw sensor values and translate them into an image we can see on the computer. There's a default setting for this software, but the default is not The One True Image.
The images you get from a default-settings JPEG is just some Canon engineer's best guess at what an good all-purpose data -> image translation step might be. It's no less true or false than any other formulation of the same data into an image; it's just the default.
Some people will proudly tell you they only use the default. It'd be like an oil painter proudly telling you they never mix paints; they only use the colors as they come out of the tubes from the art store.
posted by 0xFCAF at 9:35 AM on June 14, 2016 [32 favorites]
The images you get from a default-settings JPEG is just some Canon engineer's best guess at what an good all-purpose data -> image translation step might be. It's no less true or false than any other formulation of the same data into an image; it's just the default.
Some people will proudly tell you they only use the default. It'd be like an oil painter proudly telling you they never mix paints; they only use the colors as they come out of the tubes from the art store.
posted by 0xFCAF at 9:35 AM on June 14, 2016 [32 favorites]
The second-to-last link is definitely worth checking out, as it demonstrates that McCurry has been manipulating and staging photos long before there was digital, and while presenting himself as a hard photojournalist.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 9:35 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by 1970s Antihero at 9:35 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
It'd be like an oil painter proudly telling you they never mix paints; they only use the colors as they come out of the tubes from the art store.
And, in this case, that they paint only exactly what they see through a wire frame, no more or less.
posted by bonehead at 9:39 AM on June 14, 2016
And, in this case, that they paint only exactly what they see through a wire frame, no more or less.
posted by bonehead at 9:39 AM on June 14, 2016
"All photography is interpretation, thus any form of re-interpretation is still okay" is a slippery slope fallacy. It's possible to understand that photography interprets/reframes, and also to say that there are certain choices in editing that drastically alter the content even more so.
posted by suedehead at 9:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by suedehead at 9:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Just...be clear about it, is all. Don't be one thing while you let on that you're another. As a bonus, when you stand tall and walk straight, all manner of things are forgiven.
Stay on the bus.
I agree with the guideline to be open about what's going on - "that one is right out of the camera, this one had a plastic bag edited out, these are stitched together, land and sky. Those were staged."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:49 AM on June 14, 2016
Stay on the bus.
I agree with the guideline to be open about what's going on - "that one is right out of the camera, this one had a plastic bag edited out, these are stitched together, land and sky. Those were staged."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:49 AM on June 14, 2016
he's seen himself more as an artist (for whom composition alteration is 100% ok) than having the responsibility of editorial fidelity required for news.
Even as an artist, he is taking pictures in a context in which the viewer assumes there was no staging or digital manipulation. The art he is presenting is capturing episodes of life as a travel photographer, not (for example) "an exploration of symmetry", in which we would be fine with digitally manipulated images to create the desired visual effect.
As far as Cole's critique, the article is an example of why art critics are necessary. Cole is a photographer and is obviously bored and jaded by the well-trodden territory McCurry has exploded. However, the audience for travel photography gets a lot out of his work. I'm sure if I had spent decades as a travel photographer, I would be bored by McCurry's work as well. But I am not, so everything he does is new and interesting to me. What makes Cole happy is what would make the small community of travel photographers happy. But McCurry isn't working for them.
posted by deanc at 9:52 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Even as an artist, he is taking pictures in a context in which the viewer assumes there was no staging or digital manipulation. The art he is presenting is capturing episodes of life as a travel photographer, not (for example) "an exploration of symmetry", in which we would be fine with digitally manipulated images to create the desired visual effect.
As far as Cole's critique, the article is an example of why art critics are necessary. Cole is a photographer and is obviously bored and jaded by the well-trodden territory McCurry has exploded. However, the audience for travel photography gets a lot out of his work. I'm sure if I had spent decades as a travel photographer, I would be bored by McCurry's work as well. But I am not, so everything he does is new and interesting to me. What makes Cole happy is what would make the small community of travel photographers happy. But McCurry isn't working for them.
posted by deanc at 9:52 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Honestly, editing digital images is only a problem if the person taking the photo claims he or she is NOT editing them.
I disagree. When I see a photo, I assume that I'm seeing a thing that happened (unless of course it's an obviously fake one), and if someone is manipulating the photo in subtle ways that change what the photo is presenting, I think it's incumbent on them to say "This photo has been edited to remove people in the background" or whatever without anyone having to ask.
The key word here is assume. Your assumption has a false basis, and the overwhelming majority of images you see have been modified in some way.
I worked for a Big Architectural Photographer in college, cleaning his images for hourly $. Not a single image has left his shop, or any photography house, without being corrected for dust spots, film/developing inconsistencies, detector/digital artefacts, motion blurs, birds, airplanes, refelctions from car windows, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.
Every image you see is modified. Change your assumptions.
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 9:58 AM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
I disagree. When I see a photo, I assume that I'm seeing a thing that happened (unless of course it's an obviously fake one), and if someone is manipulating the photo in subtle ways that change what the photo is presenting, I think it's incumbent on them to say "This photo has been edited to remove people in the background" or whatever without anyone having to ask.
The key word here is assume. Your assumption has a false basis, and the overwhelming majority of images you see have been modified in some way.
I worked for a Big Architectural Photographer in college, cleaning his images for hourly $. Not a single image has left his shop, or any photography house, without being corrected for dust spots, film/developing inconsistencies, detector/digital artefacts, motion blurs, birds, airplanes, refelctions from car windows, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.
Every image you see is modified. Change your assumptions.
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 9:58 AM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
I just assume that any image I see has been manipulated in some way unless I took it myself.
posted by octothorpe at 10:00 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 10:00 AM on June 14, 2016
I don't see the argument there as separable between fidelity of composition and value of the art to the viewer. Ultimately, McCurry is making a series of choices about what image he's presenting to his viewers. Were those choices made only through serendipity of capture, through staging "real" images or through post-capture manipulation (or all of the above), those are still his artistic choices. That's what matters, and that's why Cole largely, I think, discards that line of argument in his critique.
It doesn't matter how McCurry gets his images, what matters is what those images say.
he is taking pictures in a context in which the viewer assumes there was no staging or digital manipulation. The art he is presenting is capturing episodes of life as a travel photographer
Having taken classes from a few such---with published magazine credits and national awards to their name---and having seen the examples they use in their classes, I do not make these assumptions.
posted by bonehead at 10:02 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
It doesn't matter how McCurry gets his images, what matters is what those images say.
he is taking pictures in a context in which the viewer assumes there was no staging or digital manipulation. The art he is presenting is capturing episodes of life as a travel photographer
Having taken classes from a few such---with published magazine credits and national awards to their name---and having seen the examples they use in their classes, I do not make these assumptions.
posted by bonehead at 10:02 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
My work is based on reality, and it starts out being photographic and sometimes stays that way, but I'm first and foremost a photo-illustrator and an artist.
I am pretty sure that would kill his career with his current audience. People like his photographs because they want to see scenes of life of fading cultures in distant places, not to fawn over the amazing digital illustration techniques he uses. He'd be trading an audience for travel photography for an audience of people interested in photoillustration. He is unlikely to make that career transition.
Having taken classes from a few such (with published magazine credits and national awards to their names), I do not make these assumptions.
But we do make those assumptions, which is why magazines typically condemn and fire photographers caught making such compositional manipulations
posted by deanc at 10:04 AM on June 14, 2016
I am pretty sure that would kill his career with his current audience. People like his photographs because they want to see scenes of life of fading cultures in distant places, not to fawn over the amazing digital illustration techniques he uses. He'd be trading an audience for travel photography for an audience of people interested in photoillustration. He is unlikely to make that career transition.
Having taken classes from a few such (with published magazine credits and national awards to their names), I do not make these assumptions.
But we do make those assumptions, which is why magazines typically condemn and fire photographers caught making such compositional manipulations
posted by deanc at 10:04 AM on June 14, 2016
As a photographer who has not worked in photojournalism (and who would never particularly care to) I'm happy to say that I edit the everloving bits out of my photos, but with two goals:
A.) present the photo as a representation of what I felt when I was taking it, and
B.) attempt to present a photo that has not obviously been manipulated, aside from the standard balance / contrast / color correction*
and all that's fine and great for what I do. But if you're presenting yourself as a photojournalist I think all of that should be off the table. They should sell a PJ version of Photoshop that doesn't even have a clone tool. Photojournalists should be limiting themselves to "f/8 and be there" and little else.
* occasional exceptions apply when I'm deliberately trying to create something surreal
posted by komara at 10:07 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
A.) present the photo as a representation of what I felt when I was taking it, and
B.) attempt to present a photo that has not obviously been manipulated, aside from the standard balance / contrast / color correction*
and all that's fine and great for what I do. But if you're presenting yourself as a photojournalist I think all of that should be off the table. They should sell a PJ version of Photoshop that doesn't even have a clone tool. Photojournalists should be limiting themselves to "f/8 and be there" and little else.
* occasional exceptions apply when I'm deliberately trying to create something surreal
posted by komara at 10:07 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
The point is that no matter what there is choice and interpretation. No matter what, what the camera sees is not unbiased "truth," it is the result of the decisions of the photographer and the engineer who made the camera, and ownership needs to be taken of that fact.
You have to choose what "truth" is... because you are choosing a specific time perspective that only shows certain things, and you are using equipment that will depict them in a certain way that is guaranteed to not be what the eye sees because that is pretty near impossible.
So if an artist is choosing their "truth" to be beauty, well... they should do that but, yes, they should own up to the fact that they do that, but that it part of a process that already chooses what to show and how to show it in ways that can be deceptive even without post-processing.
Though I can see why someone who just loves being an artist without the philosophical machinery to do that well would be sheepish about admitting that, because there's a lot of people out there with a cargo-cult version of truth and accuracy.
I am reminded of a photographer who I'd met at a party describing a composite picture he made of mountain climbers at dawn from one photo that could capture the climbers without being too dark and one photo to capture the sky without being washed out in order to capture what it was really like to be there. His boss made him use only one or the other because it was more 'truthful'. As a scientist this offends me dearly, because for fucks sake, the artifacts of your detector's insufficient dynamic range is not the truth and it would be dishonest to publish a scientific paper that pretended like it was.
posted by Zalzidrax at 10:08 AM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
You have to choose what "truth" is... because you are choosing a specific time perspective that only shows certain things, and you are using equipment that will depict them in a certain way that is guaranteed to not be what the eye sees because that is pretty near impossible.
So if an artist is choosing their "truth" to be beauty, well... they should do that but, yes, they should own up to the fact that they do that, but that it part of a process that already chooses what to show and how to show it in ways that can be deceptive even without post-processing.
Though I can see why someone who just loves being an artist without the philosophical machinery to do that well would be sheepish about admitting that, because there's a lot of people out there with a cargo-cult version of truth and accuracy.
I am reminded of a photographer who I'd met at a party describing a composite picture he made of mountain climbers at dawn from one photo that could capture the climbers without being too dark and one photo to capture the sky without being washed out in order to capture what it was really like to be there. His boss made him use only one or the other because it was more 'truthful'. As a scientist this offends me dearly, because for fucks sake, the artifacts of your detector's insufficient dynamic range is not the truth and it would be dishonest to publish a scientific paper that pretended like it was.
posted by Zalzidrax at 10:08 AM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
magazines typically condemn and fire photographers caught making such compositional manipulations
For news, absolutely. National Georgraphic isn't news though, and has always had significantly manipulated images.
posted by bonehead at 10:09 AM on June 14, 2016
For news, absolutely. National Georgraphic isn't news though, and has always had significantly manipulated images.
posted by bonehead at 10:09 AM on June 14, 2016
Photography standards for what gets published in the New York Times:
posted by deanc at 10:10 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Images in our pages, in the paper or on the Web, that purport to depict reality must be genuine in every way. No people or objects may be added, rearranged, reversed, distorted or removed from a scene (except for the recognized practice of cropping to omit extraneous outer portions).This came up several years ago when a photographer taking pictures of an abandoned housing development was caught manipulating the images so they would look more like he wanted them to look. Well, good for him, but that's not what the Times asked for.
posted by deanc at 10:10 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
For news, absolutely. National Georgraphic isn't news though, and has always has significantly manipulated images.
They are pretty up front about their photo guidelines, with typical cropping being the only compositional change accepted.
The cover showing a manipulated perspective of the pyramids of Giza in 1982 was widely condemned and led to a tightening of standards at National Geographic, so claiming that it's just a forum for photoillustration is wrong.
posted by deanc at 10:20 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
They are pretty up front about their photo guidelines, with typical cropping being the only compositional change accepted.
The cover showing a manipulated perspective of the pyramids of Giza in 1982 was widely condemned and led to a tightening of standards at National Geographic, so claiming that it's just a forum for photoillustration is wrong.
posted by deanc at 10:20 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
The cover showing a manipulated perspective of the pyramids of Giza in 1982 was widely condemned and led to a tightening of standards at National Geographic,
Interesting link. Apparently the manipulation occurred in the editorial offices and it was the photographer who complained about it. But it goes on to state that he had paid the men to ride in front of the pyramids several times until he got the composition he wanted. It really is impossible to take a photo without editorializing in some way. One of my go-to examples is how common it is to take pictures of drought conditions at pretty much any lake from close to the ground with a wide lens, resulting in a vast expanse of dried, cracked mud stretching to a distant sliver of water. The same scene shot with a longer lens from a different perspective would tell a very different story.
posted by TedW at 10:33 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Interesting link. Apparently the manipulation occurred in the editorial offices and it was the photographer who complained about it. But it goes on to state that he had paid the men to ride in front of the pyramids several times until he got the composition he wanted. It really is impossible to take a photo without editorializing in some way. One of my go-to examples is how common it is to take pictures of drought conditions at pretty much any lake from close to the ground with a wide lens, resulting in a vast expanse of dried, cracked mud stretching to a distant sliver of water. The same scene shot with a longer lens from a different perspective would tell a very different story.
posted by TedW at 10:33 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
That whole altered images is site that has the National Geographic link fron deanc is really good worth a look from anyone interested in the topic. Some well-known examples of editorial manipulation there, but some that surprised me as well.
posted by TedW at 10:43 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by TedW at 10:43 AM on June 14, 2016
I don't particularly care about photos that have been manipulated for style, even when it's ostensibly photojournalism. What I do care about is when that style - which influences the composition of the original photograph as well as its edited final version - is motivated by an eye that can't see a place like India beyond the usual cliches.
posted by teponaztli at 10:46 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by teponaztli at 10:46 AM on June 14, 2016
RW Staging is likely the most common "manipulation" and it's almost impossible to police.
The major concern NG indicates is the ethical one, to prevent disruptions up to and including horrors like the thread staging that was caught a couple of years ago.
But reshoots, directing subjects, adding or removing props, I doubt that would be a major problem to most of the NG photographers. Including McCurry, if a few of the links in the post are to be believed.
posted by bonehead at 10:47 AM on June 14, 2016
The major concern NG indicates is the ethical one, to prevent disruptions up to and including horrors like the thread staging that was caught a couple of years ago.
But reshoots, directing subjects, adding or removing props, I doubt that would be a major problem to most of the NG photographers. Including McCurry, if a few of the links in the post are to be believed.
posted by bonehead at 10:47 AM on June 14, 2016
Wouldn't it be possible, in our digital, link-heavy world, to include an unedited version with the one being used? Put the striking/edited version on top of the page or wherever, but also have a link to an unedited JPEG. I would find that really interesting and even instructive.
I think in news you would still have to draw a line between something that approximates the reality of what the photographer saw and something that is wholly constructed.
Of course what's interesting to me is that a lot of the sizzle of a great photo is that it looks so hyperreal, but it's presented as real. The photographer's eyes, and their art, capture something you could have walked past a hundred times and never noticed. But of course what you're really seeing is what a camera can notice in the hand of a skilled photographer, plus whatever manipulations they do to make that image more striking. Which is not at all the same thing as what you walked past a hundred times.
posted by emjaybee at 11:15 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think in news you would still have to draw a line between something that approximates the reality of what the photographer saw and something that is wholly constructed.
Of course what's interesting to me is that a lot of the sizzle of a great photo is that it looks so hyperreal, but it's presented as real. The photographer's eyes, and their art, capture something you could have walked past a hundred times and never noticed. But of course what you're really seeing is what a camera can notice in the hand of a skilled photographer, plus whatever manipulations they do to make that image more striking. Which is not at all the same thing as what you walked past a hundred times.
posted by emjaybee at 11:15 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Cole's piece seems to be "I don't care for McCurry's style and prefer another" which is fine, but moves into "since most people seem to disagree I'm going to claim it's not just inferior, but wrong" which is also his prerogative.
I don't totally get the argument though, surely India is multi faceted, surely there are many sides to it. Why is only one vision correct? People seem to be hung up on the imperialist view of this, but this exact thing happens in the US. There are different styles, different views. You don't like some of them.
This happens in my field, works that I think are obviously "inferior" but the public loves them. Most professionals I know accept this, the work is mostly for the public, not the critics.
Personally, I don't care for his rebuttal image, it seems boring and cliche. What do I know?
posted by bongo_x at 11:19 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't totally get the argument though, surely India is multi faceted, surely there are many sides to it. Why is only one vision correct? People seem to be hung up on the imperialist view of this, but this exact thing happens in the US. There are different styles, different views. You don't like some of them.
This happens in my field, works that I think are obviously "inferior" but the public loves them. Most professionals I know accept this, the work is mostly for the public, not the critics.
Personally, I don't care for his rebuttal image, it seems boring and cliche. What do I know?
posted by bongo_x at 11:19 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Interesting that we expect photojournalists to present the complete image, warts and all, but journalists don't ever present the whole picture. News writers have to omit details, and make decisions on what is pertinent, with every story. It's done to ensure you understand the story, to know what's important, and not be distracted by an unnecessary level of detail.
If the changes are presented to an editor for review (with the "first take" for comparison), I would have no problem with photo manipulation, and I guess I've always assumed that was how it was done.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:27 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
If the changes are presented to an editor for review (with the "first take" for comparison), I would have no problem with photo manipulation, and I guess I've always assumed that was how it was done.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:27 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
For news, absolutely. National Geographic isn't news though, and has always had significantly manipulated images.
I like reading vintage Nat-Geo's, I'm a fan of that style. But wow, it's always been a really heavily filtered and interpreted version of reality that they have presented, that's obvious.
posted by ovvl at 11:31 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I like reading vintage Nat-Geo's, I'm a fan of that style. But wow, it's always been a really heavily filtered and interpreted version of reality that they have presented, that's obvious.
posted by ovvl at 11:31 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
TedW: "That whole altered images is site that has the National Geographic link fron deanc is really good worth a look from anyone interested in the topic. Some well-known examples of editorial manipulation there, but some that surprised me as well."
I'd forgotten about TV Guide sticking Oprah's head on Ann-Margaret's body.
posted by octothorpe at 11:42 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd forgotten about TV Guide sticking Oprah's head on Ann-Margaret's body.
posted by octothorpe at 11:42 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I see Photoshop (as I use it) as a much more nuanced, and much faster version of what used to take forever in a darkroom. A photograph that I could have spend days making in a wet darkroom I can now make in an hour in Photoshop. Of course, I don't claim otherwise.
Example of my process here. (follow the photos in order.) The (admittedly sparse) captions at least provide a rudimentary guide to my methods. Note that I haven't removed any of the original elements outside of minor cropping.
So yes, it's editorial in the sense that it is "changed", but remember this: The camera lies. Every time.. The camera is not a useful analogue of the human eye, because our perceptions are colored by the fact that our brains constantly interpret what we see. If you want a photograph to accurately reflect what your mind's eye perceives, manipulation is always required.
Things like the color responses in the sensor, and the curves associated with light levels, all the way down to to focal length of the lens used serve to distort the image from what we perceive. Who here hasn't taken a photograph they thought would be great, and been disappointed when they saw what the camera produced?
posted by pjern at 11:42 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Example of my process here. (follow the photos in order.) The (admittedly sparse) captions at least provide a rudimentary guide to my methods. Note that I haven't removed any of the original elements outside of minor cropping.
So yes, it's editorial in the sense that it is "changed", but remember this: The camera lies. Every time.. The camera is not a useful analogue of the human eye, because our perceptions are colored by the fact that our brains constantly interpret what we see. If you want a photograph to accurately reflect what your mind's eye perceives, manipulation is always required.
Things like the color responses in the sensor, and the curves associated with light levels, all the way down to to focal length of the lens used serve to distort the image from what we perceive. Who here hasn't taken a photograph they thought would be great, and been disappointed when they saw what the camera produced?
posted by pjern at 11:42 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sometimes the manipulation of an image can speak to a larger truth.
posted by tunewell at 11:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tunewell at 11:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Even just changes to levels and dodging/burning can be a problem. See for example the kerfuffle over the OJ Time cover.
HumanComplex: "There is subjectivity built in to a photo regardless of any post manipulation. Every photo is a photographer making a decision to show something, and not show something else."
This is something that non-photographers (and even some photographers) don't seem to get. Where you stand, how you frame a shot, lense selection, aperture selection, focus selection can have a huge impact on the truthiness of an image. Outright lying with images is pretty easy even before you start staging; adding lights; or otherwise directing an image to appear a particular way in camera.
posted by Mitheral at 12:02 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
HumanComplex: "There is subjectivity built in to a photo regardless of any post manipulation. Every photo is a photographer making a decision to show something, and not show something else."
This is something that non-photographers (and even some photographers) don't seem to get. Where you stand, how you frame a shot, lense selection, aperture selection, focus selection can have a huge impact on the truthiness of an image. Outright lying with images is pretty easy even before you start staging; adding lights; or otherwise directing an image to appear a particular way in camera.
posted by Mitheral at 12:02 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
The camera lies. Every time
Everything is fiction and/or propaganda. We have been through this merry go round. It comes up especially when filmmakers take egregious liberties with "true" stories. The reply is, "well, everything is interpretation, so it's just as real" (or more real). While there are limitations to what a camera can depict and every angle choice is influenced by the photographer's editorial choices, that doesn't justify cutting-and-pasting of scenes that purport to show what was actually in the shot when the photo was taken. That's especially the case where multiple angles and photographers are taking photos of the same scene, and they need to be comparable. But it is even more of a professional obligation when a photographer is the only person there-- your character is determined by what decisions you make when no one else is looking.
posted by deanc at 12:13 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Everything is fiction and/or propaganda. We have been through this merry go round. It comes up especially when filmmakers take egregious liberties with "true" stories. The reply is, "well, everything is interpretation, so it's just as real" (or more real). While there are limitations to what a camera can depict and every angle choice is influenced by the photographer's editorial choices, that doesn't justify cutting-and-pasting of scenes that purport to show what was actually in the shot when the photo was taken. That's especially the case where multiple angles and photographers are taking photos of the same scene, and they need to be comparable. But it is even more of a professional obligation when a photographer is the only person there-- your character is determined by what decisions you make when no one else is looking.
posted by deanc at 12:13 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
In the "new questions" link Mike from Online Photographer makes an interesting distinction between a photo illustration and a photograph -- changes that alter the meaning or interpretation slant more towards illustration than those that merely clean it up a bit for emphasis. His example takes a small circle of light and moves it a few inches, creating an implied halo over a person's head. This is presented as being perhaps more illustration than McCurry's removal of people from an image.
I like this idea of thinking about the impact of the change more than the change itself. Darkening OJs face has a particular impact on the image. A bit of color correction might in some cases create a dramatic impact on meaning or in others very little. And the impact is likely to be different for different people viewing the image. But, even if bright lines cannot be drawn between photo illustrations and photographs, I still think that considering the issue from this angle may be more productive than deciding that, say, cropping is ok but using the rubber stamp tool isn't.
posted by cubby at 12:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I like this idea of thinking about the impact of the change more than the change itself. Darkening OJs face has a particular impact on the image. A bit of color correction might in some cases create a dramatic impact on meaning or in others very little. And the impact is likely to be different for different people viewing the image. But, even if bright lines cannot be drawn between photo illustrations and photographs, I still think that considering the issue from this angle may be more productive than deciding that, say, cropping is ok but using the rubber stamp tool isn't.
posted by cubby at 12:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't really have a problem with deciding to draw a dividing line somewhere. I feel like I encounter this sort of argument all the time -- where rigorous analysis shows that the assumed distinction is quantitative, not qualitative, then people polarize between those who then argue that the lack of a qualitative difference means no distinction can be made and those who argue that, no, there really is a qualitative distinction because obviously we can distinguish between x-extreme case and the opposing y-extreme case. I don't understand this -- large quantitative differences often function as if they were qualitative differences, it's just pragmatics. If it makes sense for us to say that these two extremes are really, really different from each other such that we just don't want to think of them as the same thing, then even if we discover that we can make slow alterations from one extreme to the other without any clear transformative moment, we sort of have to decide to draw that dividing line somewhere if we really want to place those two things in separate categories.
But we tend to have these arguments because we've, in the past, decided to draw a line somewhere and then someone challenges that placement. And people have been assuming that, gosh, there really must be something totally different right on one side of the line than the other, and they freak out at someone's argument for drawing the line somewhere even slightly different. This drives me nuts.
All photography is deeply subjective -- the idea that photographs are somehow captured moments of objective reality is a kind of popular myth. I think a lot of problematic things, both socially and aesthetically, arise from this misunderstanding. But, sure, we have some vague but mostly shared sense that at one extreme there's a realistic photograph and at the other extreme there's some kind of artistic photograph cum painting (and maybe not even representative). It's useful to draw the line somewhere, to call one portion of photography "photojournalism" and, in doing so, deciding which photography does and does not meet that standard. But it's also the case that it's entirely reasonable to argue for a shift of that dividing line -- maybe that includes removing some objects as long as it doesn't alter the "editorial content" of the image, whatever that is. We'll end up arguing about that, but okay. Or maybe we don't want to draw it so far in that direction, maybe we want to disallow all object removal. But make no mistake -- cropping is object removal and so is composition. Do not confuse where you personally are most comfortable making the distinction with some sort of self-evident universal truth.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:36 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
But we tend to have these arguments because we've, in the past, decided to draw a line somewhere and then someone challenges that placement. And people have been assuming that, gosh, there really must be something totally different right on one side of the line than the other, and they freak out at someone's argument for drawing the line somewhere even slightly different. This drives me nuts.
All photography is deeply subjective -- the idea that photographs are somehow captured moments of objective reality is a kind of popular myth. I think a lot of problematic things, both socially and aesthetically, arise from this misunderstanding. But, sure, we have some vague but mostly shared sense that at one extreme there's a realistic photograph and at the other extreme there's some kind of artistic photograph cum painting (and maybe not even representative). It's useful to draw the line somewhere, to call one portion of photography "photojournalism" and, in doing so, deciding which photography does and does not meet that standard. But it's also the case that it's entirely reasonable to argue for a shift of that dividing line -- maybe that includes removing some objects as long as it doesn't alter the "editorial content" of the image, whatever that is. We'll end up arguing about that, but okay. Or maybe we don't want to draw it so far in that direction, maybe we want to disallow all object removal. But make no mistake -- cropping is object removal and so is composition. Do not confuse where you personally are most comfortable making the distinction with some sort of self-evident universal truth.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:36 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Use of Photoshop in scientific publishing can be a major issue as well.
What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation
posted by Existential Dread at 12:38 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation
It's all so easy with Photoshop. In the days before imaging software became so widely available, making adjustments to image data in the darkroom required considerable effort and/or expertise. It is now very simple, and thus tempting, to adjust or modify digital image files. Many such manipulations, however, constitute inappropriate changes to your original data, and making such changes can be classified as scientific misconduct. Skilled editorial staff can spot such manipulations using features in the imaging software, so manipulation is also a risky proposition.Image Integrity and Standards from Nature Publishing Group.
Images submitted with a manuscript for review should be minimally processed (for instance, to add arrows to a micrograph). Authors should retain their unprocessed data and metadata files, as editors may request them to aid in manuscript evaluation. If unprocessed data are unavailable, manuscript evaluation may be stalled until the issue is resolved.It's true that the mere act of taking a photograph is a subjective one. However, if you're trading on authenticity and accuracy (scientific images and photojournalism), then you need to be transparent about the manipulations you are making. Especially if you are explicitly moving and editing elements within the photograph, rather than sharpness, shading, and so on.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:38 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Reuters Issues a Worldwide Ban on RAW Photos
That's probably because the files are fucking huge, and also they aren't really "done." They affirmatively require further processing to produce a human-viewable image; the raw sensor data is not mapped to any particular gamut that would permit you to know definitively what color (and sometimes more to the point, what brightness tone) any pixel is supposed to be. It's like "here's a rough draft, editor; you figure it out."
I just assume that any image I see has been manipulated in some way unless I took it myself.
Not to belabor the issue, but the point is the image is always manipulated in some way, even if you did take it yourself. It's just that the manipulations are being done by some Canon or Nikon engineer who you've never met and has no idea what you're trying to accomplish.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 12:42 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
That's probably because the files are fucking huge, and also they aren't really "done." They affirmatively require further processing to produce a human-viewable image; the raw sensor data is not mapped to any particular gamut that would permit you to know definitively what color (and sometimes more to the point, what brightness tone) any pixel is supposed to be. It's like "here's a rough draft, editor; you figure it out."
I just assume that any image I see has been manipulated in some way unless I took it myself.
Not to belabor the issue, but the point is the image is always manipulated in some way, even if you did take it yourself. It's just that the manipulations are being done by some Canon or Nikon engineer who you've never met and has no idea what you're trying to accomplish.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 12:42 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
That's probably because the files are fucking huge, and also they aren't really "done."
That's not what Reuters is saying. They're saying that all photographs submitted to them MUST be JPEGs straight out of the camera. They can't be JPEGs generated from RAW in post, even if no processing was done on them, because there's no way to verify that.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 12:54 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
That's not what Reuters is saying. They're saying that all photographs submitted to them MUST be JPEGs straight out of the camera. They can't be JPEGs generated from RAW in post, even if no processing was done on them, because there's no way to verify that.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 12:54 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, until we get cryptographically signed jpeg coming off the camera, that's not particularly verifiable either.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 12:59 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 12:59 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
"That's not what Reuters is saying. They're saying that all photographs submitted to them MUST be JPEGs straight out of the camera. They can't be JPEGs generated from RAW in post, even if no processing was done on them, because there's no way to verify that."
Yeah, but if veracity was the most important consideration, they'd actually want the RAW files themselves and adjust them in an editorially consistent way. They're getting worse photographs with the in-camera JPGs because usually there are a number of one-size-fits-all filters applied so that more casual photographers get good photos right out of the camera. It's counterintuitive for professional photographers to be expected to use those JPGs. However, the fact of the matter is that these days these automatic in-camera JPG adjustments are quite good and usually do suffice for journalistic purposes and this way they can expect to get smaller files, more quickly, which they don't themselves have to process (more than minimally) and which they arguably have some slightly greater assurance haven't been altered. But I feel pretty sure that the veracity consideration is the minor one.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:15 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, but if veracity was the most important consideration, they'd actually want the RAW files themselves and adjust them in an editorially consistent way. They're getting worse photographs with the in-camera JPGs because usually there are a number of one-size-fits-all filters applied so that more casual photographers get good photos right out of the camera. It's counterintuitive for professional photographers to be expected to use those JPGs. However, the fact of the matter is that these days these automatic in-camera JPG adjustments are quite good and usually do suffice for journalistic purposes and this way they can expect to get smaller files, more quickly, which they don't themselves have to process (more than minimally) and which they arguably have some slightly greater assurance haven't been altered. But I feel pretty sure that the veracity consideration is the minor one.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:15 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
The line blurs even more in modern cameras that allow you to modify what the camera does when it converts the raw data to a jpeg. This ability is fairly limited at the moment but it will just get better in the future.
posted by Mitheral at 1:59 PM on June 14, 2016
posted by Mitheral at 1:59 PM on June 14, 2016
Without reading the whole thread -- there are lots of perfectly cromulent uses of photo editing tools. Would a photographer in a darkroom insist on making an under-exposed print simply because he had under-exposed the negative? No, they would burn the paper a little longer to make up for it. There are places & times where being able to properly gauge the framing or exposure might be difficult or impossible due to circumstances -- dark locations, fast-moving situations, etc. In my cave photography, I may spend 15 minutes setting up a shot, double-checking it against the backscreen, moving flashes around, & still come home with photos that are flawed -- for one, because the backscreen is very bright to dark-habituated eyes, and I underexpose EVERYTHING as a result. So I bracket, bracket, bracket, & will often combine the highlights of an underexposed .nef file with the shadows of an overexposed one. Is this trickery? No, I'm trying to represent what I actually saw with my eyes.
Cloning is a trickier area, but I can't tell you how many times I've gotten home to realize I left my stupid blue cave pack in the middle of the floor & not noticed it was in the shot, working in the dark. I have cloned it out of otherwise great shots that it ruined a time or two.
I'm probably a bit more on the pro-use side of Photoshop for the simple reason that I may never be able to get back to a particular cave passage again, & the same can be said for a lot of nature photography. You might never see a double-beaked crested bunting again for all your days, and that volcano might not erupt again for 200 years. It's situational.
My feeling is: exposure adjustments? What's the difference between the physical darkroom & the digital one other than convenience? Cloning? If it fixes an artistic shot, sure. In journalism it's bad, because it may be misrepresenting facts. Photo journalists shouldn't clone.
posted by Devils Rancher at 1:59 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Cloning is a trickier area, but I can't tell you how many times I've gotten home to realize I left my stupid blue cave pack in the middle of the floor & not noticed it was in the shot, working in the dark. I have cloned it out of otherwise great shots that it ruined a time or two.
I'm probably a bit more on the pro-use side of Photoshop for the simple reason that I may never be able to get back to a particular cave passage again, & the same can be said for a lot of nature photography. You might never see a double-beaked crested bunting again for all your days, and that volcano might not erupt again for 200 years. It's situational.
My feeling is: exposure adjustments? What's the difference between the physical darkroom & the digital one other than convenience? Cloning? If it fixes an artistic shot, sure. In journalism it's bad, because it may be misrepresenting facts. Photo journalists shouldn't clone.
posted by Devils Rancher at 1:59 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
It is an interesting conundrum, because I think everyone probably has some idea of what seems dishonest (e.g., adding extra missiles into an image, making OJ darker, deliberately staging a scene, etc.) but these don't really correspond to any particular technology or practice. What if you adjust the skin tone of a person of color? What if you do it because the film you are using (or in-camera digital processing algorithm) is optimized for white people? Cloning out a distracting element is clearly changing an image, but the element is not germane to the subject of the photo, does it really change what the photo is saying?
For a news agency, I think you really need to have guidelines, even if those guidelines are fairly arbitrary. Anyone interpreting photojournalism should hopefully be aware that what they are seeing is highly manipulated/selective, even if that is just the choice of where to point the camera.
posted by snofoam at 4:23 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
For a news agency, I think you really need to have guidelines, even if those guidelines are fairly arbitrary. Anyone interpreting photojournalism should hopefully be aware that what they are seeing is highly manipulated/selective, even if that is just the choice of where to point the camera.
posted by snofoam at 4:23 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Jeez, this thread has started filling me with existential dread. It makes me want to just shoot Tri-X exclusively and not think about this shit.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 4:27 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by 1970s Antihero at 4:27 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
...and having seen the examples they use in their classes, I do not make these assumptions.
The one seminar I have taken was a 2-day macro photography class, where we did a lot of work on lighting, composition, etc, but the big takeaway for me was focus stacking. The guy who taught the class would sometimes focus-stack over 100 shots into one image. There's only so much you can do via f-stop & for me, it was revelatory.
He was doing his with the camera on a geared track so that he didn't have to change focus with the lens, thus less edge distortion to contend with, but I have since then gotten some great close ups of wild flowers by focus stacking 6 or 8 pictures, just by taking them in sequence, while manually focusing each shot a couple millimeters further away than the previous ones.
It's camera trickery, but my eyes have greater depth of field than my macro lens, so the resulting pictures look more "real" than the ones narrowly focused on one plane of the subject. Or, you can go with a wide f-stop , have the whole subject (flower, hug, whatever) in focus, while leaving the background totally blurred out, if it's distracting. The guy teaching the class's specialized in insects, so he was looking for hyper-real pictures, since part of his work was documenting collections for entomologists. It was a useful tool for that. I was recently documenting wildflowers for a nature preserve & it was highly useful.
posted by Devils Rancher at 5:25 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
The one seminar I have taken was a 2-day macro photography class, where we did a lot of work on lighting, composition, etc, but the big takeaway for me was focus stacking. The guy who taught the class would sometimes focus-stack over 100 shots into one image. There's only so much you can do via f-stop & for me, it was revelatory.
He was doing his with the camera on a geared track so that he didn't have to change focus with the lens, thus less edge distortion to contend with, but I have since then gotten some great close ups of wild flowers by focus stacking 6 or 8 pictures, just by taking them in sequence, while manually focusing each shot a couple millimeters further away than the previous ones.
It's camera trickery, but my eyes have greater depth of field than my macro lens, so the resulting pictures look more "real" than the ones narrowly focused on one plane of the subject. Or, you can go with a wide f-stop , have the whole subject (flower, hug, whatever) in focus, while leaving the background totally blurred out, if it's distracting. The guy teaching the class's specialized in insects, so he was looking for hyper-real pictures, since part of his work was documenting collections for entomologists. It was a useful tool for that. I was recently documenting wildflowers for a nature preserve & it was highly useful.
posted by Devils Rancher at 5:25 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well this is a terribly fun conversation. I find it particularly pertinent to my interests... I'm in the midst of a photography program and taking the photo editing (adobe products) class currently.
I've certainly felt discomfort and wondered about the ethics of various levels of digital manipulation.
In this case it seems fairly simple - if he was working for a publication that had clear rules, he should have followed those rules. To do otherwise was deceiving the people literally writing his paycheck.
In some ways having rules that are set by the organization publishing photos is a easy way to deal with this. That being said, that is just shifting the ethical discussions and conundrums on those organizations instead of having interesting (and potentially difficult) conversations about those ethics.
Obviously it's not unethical for me to move a camera bag outside of the view of my camera before taking a picture. But if I make that 'edit' in photoshop afterwards is it less ethical? If I remove a person from a picture that gets weird (thanks Stalin!), but what if I kindly ask them to move before taking the picture? Well, probably not a problem, but what if I'm engaged in photojournalism, and the presence of that person could be an important part of the story? (I can imagine Trumps handlers not wanting clansmen in the photo ops).
If my photograph is hanging in a gallery (not likely anytime soon), do all the rules go away? If I'm explicitly calling it art, are the processes involved anyones concern really?
If I make a model skinnier than her already ridiculously skinny body that sounds problematic... But removing a pimple digitally on that same model probably shouldn't be a problem (right?).
In my mind having this conversation is almost as important as coming up with answers, although there are some obvious wrong answers (making already skinny people more skinny, removing people that are historically pertinent from pictures, lying to your employer about what you are doing to your photos).
Great thread everyone! Thanks.
I gotta get back to photoshop now, and change reality for an assignment.
posted by el io at 10:10 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
I've certainly felt discomfort and wondered about the ethics of various levels of digital manipulation.
In this case it seems fairly simple - if he was working for a publication that had clear rules, he should have followed those rules. To do otherwise was deceiving the people literally writing his paycheck.
In some ways having rules that are set by the organization publishing photos is a easy way to deal with this. That being said, that is just shifting the ethical discussions and conundrums on those organizations instead of having interesting (and potentially difficult) conversations about those ethics.
Obviously it's not unethical for me to move a camera bag outside of the view of my camera before taking a picture. But if I make that 'edit' in photoshop afterwards is it less ethical? If I remove a person from a picture that gets weird (thanks Stalin!), but what if I kindly ask them to move before taking the picture? Well, probably not a problem, but what if I'm engaged in photojournalism, and the presence of that person could be an important part of the story? (I can imagine Trumps handlers not wanting clansmen in the photo ops).
If my photograph is hanging in a gallery (not likely anytime soon), do all the rules go away? If I'm explicitly calling it art, are the processes involved anyones concern really?
If I make a model skinnier than her already ridiculously skinny body that sounds problematic... But removing a pimple digitally on that same model probably shouldn't be a problem (right?).
In my mind having this conversation is almost as important as coming up with answers, although there are some obvious wrong answers (making already skinny people more skinny, removing people that are historically pertinent from pictures, lying to your employer about what you are doing to your photos).
Great thread everyone! Thanks.
I gotta get back to photoshop now, and change reality for an assignment.
posted by el io at 10:10 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Here is where it gets tricky: Is it OK for you to shift someone else's camera bag a couple feet to get it out of your shot? (Maybe they've went to lunch or something). How about that film canister some hipster dropped in the shot last week?
Many street signs are held in place in their mounts by a single bolt. Ok to remove one temporarily if it is destroying an otherwise perfect vista? Let's assume its is of a non-safety nature.
Here's one I contemplated this week. I was taking pictures of flowers growing in the earth shoulder of a paved multi-use path. The shoulder is about three metres wide before it drops on into the rip-rap bordering a river. Because the path is heavily used by dog walkers the city has placed poop bag dispensers and receptacles at regular intervals along the path. They also mow the otherwise knee high grass and wild flowers on the shoulders but only for the first metre next to the pavement. The flower I was wanting to photograph just barely missed being mowed down. However there was a wild oat stock blocking shot literally right on the edge of the mowed area; one centimetre closer and it would have been mowed down. OK to remove or at least break off the stock? Spoiler: I bent that sucker to the side; the photo was art not news.
My favourite photojournalism altered photo though has to be the Kent State Shooting photo. Depending on where you were first exposed to the image you might not realize that Mary Ann Vecchio appeared to have a pole growing out of her head. Having found out that the original image won the Pulitzer took some of the anxiety out of getting the perfect shot for me when I was first starting.
posted by Mitheral at 2:03 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Many street signs are held in place in their mounts by a single bolt. Ok to remove one temporarily if it is destroying an otherwise perfect vista? Let's assume its is of a non-safety nature.
Here's one I contemplated this week. I was taking pictures of flowers growing in the earth shoulder of a paved multi-use path. The shoulder is about three metres wide before it drops on into the rip-rap bordering a river. Because the path is heavily used by dog walkers the city has placed poop bag dispensers and receptacles at regular intervals along the path. They also mow the otherwise knee high grass and wild flowers on the shoulders but only for the first metre next to the pavement. The flower I was wanting to photograph just barely missed being mowed down. However there was a wild oat stock blocking shot literally right on the edge of the mowed area; one centimetre closer and it would have been mowed down. OK to remove or at least break off the stock? Spoiler: I bent that sucker to the side; the photo was art not news.
My favourite photojournalism altered photo though has to be the Kent State Shooting photo. Depending on where you were first exposed to the image you might not realize that Mary Ann Vecchio appeared to have a pole growing out of her head. Having found out that the original image won the Pulitzer took some of the anxiety out of getting the perfect shot for me when I was first starting.
posted by Mitheral at 2:03 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
I remain in complete awe of the skill and craftmanship of the Soviet airbrushers, especially compared to the hamfisted attempts of the Nazi and Red Chinese to erase history.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 7:41 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by 1970s Antihero at 7:41 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Obviously it's not unethical for me to move a camera bag outside of the view of my camera before taking a picture. But if I make that 'edit' in photoshop afterwards is it less ethical?
This is the heart of why I'm not convinced there exists an ethical hard line between pre-staging and post-processing. It doesn't matter when you do it to the final result, it matters simply that you've decided that compositionally that bag has no place in your picture. Technically it does matter, cloning is always a lesser choice than getting the shot right the first time, but from the point of view of getting the picture you want, I'm not sure it does matter.
Again, it depends very much on intention: is the photographer making an evocative image, or are they trying to be a faithful witness? When I take pictures that can end up in court, I don't give a damn about composition. I focus on chain of custody to preserve evidence, I care about details like lens length and focal depth and aperture so as to not lie too much with the camera's viewpoint. It's possible to get a good looking shot that way (though I have little skill there), but that's way down the list.
posted by bonehead at 8:28 AM on June 15, 2016
This is the heart of why I'm not convinced there exists an ethical hard line between pre-staging and post-processing. It doesn't matter when you do it to the final result, it matters simply that you've decided that compositionally that bag has no place in your picture. Technically it does matter, cloning is always a lesser choice than getting the shot right the first time, but from the point of view of getting the picture you want, I'm not sure it does matter.
Again, it depends very much on intention: is the photographer making an evocative image, or are they trying to be a faithful witness? When I take pictures that can end up in court, I don't give a damn about composition. I focus on chain of custody to preserve evidence, I care about details like lens length and focal depth and aperture so as to not lie too much with the camera's viewpoint. It's possible to get a good looking shot that way (though I have little skill there), but that's way down the list.
posted by bonehead at 8:28 AM on June 15, 2016
I think in the vast majority of cases, it makes no practical difference whether you move the bag or edit it out in post. Unless the person you're photographing sprawled on the ground in front of you tripped on the bag or the bag is blocking something else that is relevant to the shot, more grass/floor/sidewalk is not going to change the meaning of the photo. But what if you know he didn't trip over the bag, even though the photo makes it look like he did? Can you still edit the bag out then?
By choosing never to edit things out in post, you eliminate those questions. The answer is simply no all the time.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:02 AM on June 15, 2016
By choosing never to edit things out in post, you eliminate those questions. The answer is simply no all the time.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:02 AM on June 15, 2016
Cloning out a bag versus moving it is one thing, but cloning is also the tool one uses to remove spots that show up when one's camera sensor has dust on it, for example. Dust on the camera sensor is not a part of the scene being photographed is it?
posted by snofoam at 11:49 AM on June 15, 2016
posted by snofoam at 11:49 AM on June 15, 2016
Via The Online Photographer, here’s a post by Robert Dannin, another Magnum Photographer, who uses the l'affaire McCurry to rant about decades-long grudges he's had against National Geographic and other magazines.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 7:04 AM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by 1970s Antihero at 7:04 AM on July 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
« Older humans are the problem | Play your worries away Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I wish other people would do likewise, at least photo-journalists. I realize I'm in the minority, of perhaps "one" here.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 8:52 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]