'It Takes TWO' - altered photographs and the L.A. Times

[johnastovall]

Women In Photography International has a very good piece 'It Takes TWO ..', on an altered photograph which ran in the L.A. Times followed by feedback from, photographers, editors and historians on what might now be called the "photodrama."

Well worth the read...

[xseption]

very interesting read!



Thanks for sharing the link ...

[kenw]

even there, one of the comments is a digression into "film-vs-digital."

give me a stinkin' break.......anyone that gets that off track has lost all pretention of respect from me. They just rendered their opinion moot.

[Tapper]

Actually, there is a "film vs. digital" element to the debate, irrespective of the comment in the article.

I was talking to a guy that owns a camera store a few weeks ago. I was buying some developing stuff (apparently a pretty rare event these days) for my foray into 4x5, and he remarked that his film business, after nose-diving for several years, was suddenly increasing. The reason, was because several local police departments were now purchasing large quantities of 35mm film again.

The reason? Judges are beginning to rule that digital images are inadmissible in court as evidence, because they can be so easily manipulated, and there had already been several cases where they had been modified, and defense attorneys were zeroing in on the potential for abuse. Thus, the new requirements of investigators to use film.

And if this impression of digital images gains traction over time? It isn't difficult to extrapolate the consequences, as people in general begin to mistrust digital images, and assume they may have been hacked up.

It is now well known that news services like Al Jazera are engaging in image (and video) manipulation for propaganda purposes as a matter of course. Journalistic integrity here in the states has taken a beating, as so many reporters seem unable to simply report events without spinning in a little of their personal political perspective.

For many years, one of the great qualities of a photographic image, is the built in assumption that it represents reality - an actual moment in time. As peoples impression of photographs changes due to the inherent ease in modifying digital images, It's possible we may see one of two events occur - either a return to film for documentary photographs, where "truth" is assumed to be a requirement, or a digital file format that uses some form of cryptographic hash to try and identify any attempts to modify the original image (if in fact, such a thing is even possible in any computer file).

Of course, a third effect is possible - that prohibitions on image modifications may force a return to actual photographic skills by photographers who have gotten used to saying "I'll fix it later in photoshop", at least in some disciplines.

[kyeoman]

Just because you can alter a photograph does not mean you should! I am a fan of digital media and the ability to quickly post images that you have taken. However, altering photographs is an ethical matter. It is representing something as real, that is not actually occuring. I understand the need to increase the exposure or fine tune some of the colors in the photograph, but DO NOT change the elements of the photograph. When you do this you are misleading people and I therefore bring into question the photographer's ethics and integrity. Just my opinion, feel free to disagree.

Kevin

[Tapper]

Should point out, that's it's only an ethical issue when you're offering an image as a representation of reality, or as "something that is" or "something that was".

[kyeoman]

When you present an image of a soldier generally pointing a gun at a man carrying a baby when that never really happened you have implied an actual occurence. If it never actually occured that is a problem with ethics and honesty. I fully support peoples artistic desire to customize photos and create new images from other images but do not pass it off as the real thing. That is just wrong!

[bradh]

I fully support, of course, the editing of photos in the nature of improving the images by making things more clear, focused, crisp, vivid, whatever... but when these people - especially photojournalists who are covering a story and thus conveying a message - ALTER the image in a way to make parts appear that WERE NOT in the original image, then that is overstepping their lines. These photogs should be barred from working in any reputable news source again, because in my opinion their reputation is forever tarnished and non-repairable.