We've occasionally discussed here the issue of altering photos. As nature photographers and artists, we have a range of views but for photojournalists the standards are clear. Here's is an interesting article about Allan Detrich, a Toledo Blade photographer who resigned after it was discovered that he had digitally altered some photos:
Posted by Bill Chambers on April 17, 2007 at 7:42 PM
The legs and cord are no big deal to me at all; no worse than a little burning, dodging, cropping IMO. Certainly no reason to resign. Adding the basketball, on the other hand, goes way beyond "cleaning up" an image. I would have a BIG problem with that if I were his editor.
Posted by Scott Fricke on April 17, 2007 at 9:00 PM
In photojournalism I think any alterations, even the cord, is not acceptable. There is a difference between optimizing an image (burning, dodging, cropping) and altering them. If you do not have an "absolute" standard in journalism people will stop believing what they read and see.
Posted by Bill Chambers on April 17, 2007 at 9:10 PM
Scott - I used to work for a newspaper back inthe late 70's. After living that experience, I haven't believed ANYTHING I've seen or read in a newspaper since. When you compare an event you witnessed with your own eyes to the story printed later about it, there's usually little or no truth left in it. Pitiful!.
I, too, don't think what this photojournalist did is that big of a deal, BUT according to the article, he signed a document saying he would not alter anything, so that's where the problem lies...he agreed not to alter and he did so anyway.
I'm shown two black & white photographs and I'm supposed to believe one is real and one isn't? Everyone who lives in a two-dimensional black and white world please raise your hand.
A photograph is not real.
I think the problem hasn't been clearly stated. Just exactly which mathematical operations do we forbid in photojournalism?
I believe that this photojournalist's suspension and resignation was well-deserved. An image can now be created from scratch that has all of the hallmarks of reality, yet still be a complete fiction. Let alone altering an existing photo.
Bill stated that he hasn't "believed ANYTHING I've seen or read in a newspaper since [he last worked for one]." This is understandable, and I have my critical doubts concerning our sensationalistic press. But a photograph is not the written word. Pete stated that "a photo is not real." Consider this then. When one reads an article, one has to comprehend the intent of the writer, and thus the meaning of the word is open to interpretation. However, when most people look at a photograph, they do not do so critically. Instead, there is an initial visceral reaction, and only the most fantastic of images are perceived as possibly fake. A photo is generally perceived as a representation of something that is absolute and concrete and whole. It is in this manner that a picture manages to convey a thousand words. It is also for this reason that if an image that is altered, even minimally and for compositional reasons, is a blatant lie. Further, it is a lie that is most frequently viewed as the truth, and no evidence is available for the viewer to consider the contrary. This is the height of unethical journalistic behavior.
As an example, when Glass was fired from the NY Post, his deception was uncovered by the public, who checked his facts and sources. This is frequently done, and many examples of public apologies, corrections, and retractions of the written word exist. But this is the first example of the discovery of a photojournalistic lie of which I am aware. The deception was not noted by
Mr. Dietrich's deception was not noted by the general public, but by a national photography editor who served as a kind of funnel point for many similar images. 58 (!) of his altered images were published before the lie was discovered.
When we as journalists share news with readers, we are showing them how things are, not how we would like them to be. I can't put it any more simply than that.
Changing the facts in a news story or the facts in a news photograph cannot be tolerated. Each would be an invention. That's a settled deal in my mind and within the minds of responsible journalists everywhere.
Bill's experiences at his old newspaper were unfortunate. While there is no defense for the actions taken by some individuals within the industry (and I try to make no defense here), I feel a need to relate some of my experiences as a way to balance negative perceptions.
I have worked for five newspapers over the last 15 years (two weeklies, three dailies, all three dailies within the former Knight-Ridder chain), and can say I've met quite a few excellent journalists who know there is bias in any human reporting, be it photographic or written, and continually scour their own work to remove it. I try to do this with my work in either medium to be used in a newspaper setting, as well as examining the work I edit. When I find bias, I either remove it or ask the reporter to do so. I have pulled the stories of others (and myself) from publication if I wasn't satisfied.
In 1997, while I was working as a reporter and assigning editor for the Grand Forks (N.D.) Herald, the Red River flooded, driving nearly 60,000 people out of Grand Forks/East Grand Forks, and causing a fire that burned down the Herald building. Thanks to a tremendous professionalism and unwillingness to be licked, the Herald never missed a day of publication. This was only possible long term because Knight-Ridder journalists from many of the chain's 30 or so other papers came to work with us. We were, after all, trying to put our homes and our lives back together just like the other 60,000 flood victims, while still working to put out the paper. We at the Herald got a lot of recognition for that work, including the top award in journalism. But far more importantly, we were lucky enough to meet and work alongside some of the most accomplished journalists in the country for that approximate six-month period. It was an excellent, ongoing opportunity to learn from the best in the business, and all Herald newsgatherers were forever changed by that experience.
While there certainly have been exceptions, I'm happy to say that I've known a far greater number of conscientious and ethical journalists than slack, unethical ones. The former are a joy to work beside. The latter need to get out of the business as quickly as possible.
Steve, I would agree wholeheartedly. Though I've never worked as a photojournalist at a newspaper I have done quite a bit of documentary photography, primarily documenting scientific experiments and photos for articles for professors. If the photograph is documentary in nature even removing a branch or leaf can change the nature of the image. Often photos of animals or plants are used for identification and scientific research and the removal of anything can have an effect on the interpretation since environment is one of the things used for this purpose. If the photo is for artistic purposes then by all means I support one altering as much as desired but if for documentary purposes I would say the content should not be altered. Just my opinion.
To me adding the ball to the image of basketball players is way over the line. The cord and legs don't alter the basic subject or alter the reality of the image.. The adding of the ball implies much better timing on the photographer's part. The Ball is a crucial element in the image. The cord or legs are not part of the subject of the image.
Should he lose his job over this? To me, absolutely, due to the addition of the ball not the legs or cord. However, it may be that he began the slip down the slop by the relatively innocuous removal of things like the cord and legs and since "graduated" to adding the ball. In his mind it might have been a small step to a disastrous end.
Posted by Marc Adamus on April 18, 2007 at 8:58 PM
There was an obvious line he crossed by manipulating any of the images. You can't have a double-standard here. Dishonesty of any kind can not be tolerated, as the executive editor points out. No alteration of subject matter should ever have a place in journalism IMO. And if there are probably only a handful of journalists that get caught for all those that go unoticed.
As a former news photographer, nothing left my darkroom which was not in someway enhanced dodging, burning, etc. Since I was always on a deadline, there was never time to do any other manipulation (wet darkroom 10 second enlarger exposure time).
As a former reporter, I know that everyone present at any event has a different perspective than any other present. However, when my wife and I go out, we frequently wonder if we were sitting next to each other. We observed very different things.
At first I thought "he resigned over that!?" But I'm beginning to understand the editor's viewpoint... you have to have standards, and those standards can't be compromised, period. Whose to say what's a significant change and what's not? As soon as it becomes acceptable to make any change, it now falls to the discretion of the journalist to decide what's significant and what's not. It's a slippery slope that will claim a lot of victims.
Photojournalism, for it to have any journalistic value, has to at least attempt to remain true to reality. Adding/removing objects is an obvious attempt to manipulate the viewer's response; adjusting contrast, burning, dodging, etc., is just a more subtle way of manipulating the viewer to elicit a response that likely would not have been elicited had the viewer witnessed the scene in person. What if you seriously burn in clouds to make a sky look far more ominous than it was? Nothing is being added or removed, but the content is being intentionally altered to misrepresent the scene and manipulate the viewer.
The only time I see this as an issue is when one is truly trying to document an event. Adding a basketball or baseball to an image while it may elevate someone's opinion of the photographer does nothing to harm the public viewing the image. Same thing with removing a person or a pair of blue jeans that is distracting as it does no harm to the readership or has them draw different conclusions. Only when the photographer attempts to add or take away from an image to evoke an additonal response (other than professional jealousy) do I see it crossing the line.
After all as photographers we all use tools available to us to achieve pleasing images. Compressing crowds with telephotos, using apertures to select what is in focus, etc. If photographers are going to be held to this high of a standard then editors must be as well. Case in point : I once had a news photographer show a group of us a photo he had taken of Rev. Billy Graham with a cane. The picture was printed in the newspaper cropped so the cane would not appear as the editor thought it would be better not to show Rev Graham on a cane. Given the same arguments should the editor not resign for altering the image ? What if the photographer had removed the cane in Photoshop ? The readers would have seen basicaly the same image.
Discussion
15 replieshttp://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070415/NEWS08/704150316&SearchID=73278368847653
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070406/NEWS08/70406008
A photograph is not real.
I think the problem hasn't been clearly stated. Just exactly which mathematical operations do we forbid in photojournalism?
Pete D.
Bill stated that he hasn't "believed ANYTHING I've seen or read in a newspaper since [he last worked for one]." This is understandable, and I have my critical doubts concerning our sensationalistic press. But a photograph is not the written word. Pete stated that "a photo is not real." Consider this then. When one reads an article, one has to comprehend the intent of the writer, and thus the meaning of the word is open to interpretation. However, when most people look at a photograph, they do not do so critically. Instead, there is an initial visceral reaction, and only the most fantastic of images are perceived as possibly fake. A photo is generally perceived as a representation of something that is absolute and concrete and whole. It is in this manner that a picture manages to convey a thousand words. It is also for this reason that if an image that is altered, even minimally and for compositional reasons, is a blatant lie. Further, it is a lie that is most frequently viewed as the truth, and no evidence is available for the viewer to consider the contrary. This is the height of unethical journalistic behavior.
As an example, when Glass was fired from the NY Post, his deception was uncovered by the public, who checked his facts and sources. This is frequently done, and many examples of public apologies, corrections, and retractions of the written word exist. But this is the first example of the discovery of a photojournalistic lie of which I am aware. The deception was not noted by
To continue:
Mr. Dietrich's deception was not noted by the general public, but by a national photography editor who served as a kind of funnel point for many similar images. 58 (!) of his altered images were published before the lie was discovered.
Changing the facts in a news story or the facts in a news photograph cannot be tolerated. Each would be an invention. That's a settled deal in my mind and within the minds of responsible journalists everywhere.
Bill's experiences at his old newspaper were unfortunate. While there is no defense for the actions taken by some individuals within the industry (and I try to make no defense here), I feel a need to relate some of my experiences as a way to balance negative perceptions.
I have worked for five newspapers over the last 15 years (two weeklies, three dailies, all three dailies within the former Knight-Ridder chain), and can say I've met quite a few excellent journalists who know there is bias in any human reporting, be it photographic or written, and continually scour their own work to remove it. I try to do this with my work in either medium to be used in a newspaper setting, as well as examining the work I edit. When I find bias, I either remove it or ask the reporter to do so. I have pulled the stories of others (and myself) from publication if I wasn't satisfied.
In 1997, while I was working as a reporter and assigning editor for the Grand Forks (N.D.) Herald, the Red River flooded, driving nearly 60,000 people out of Grand Forks/East Grand Forks, and causing a fire that burned down the Herald building. Thanks to a tremendous professionalism and unwillingness to be licked, the Herald never missed a day of publication. This was only possible long term because Knight-Ridder journalists from many of the chain's 30 or so other papers came to work with us. We were, after all, trying to put our homes and our lives back together just like the other 60,000 flood victims, while still working to put out the paper. We at the Herald got a lot of recognition for that work, including the top award in journalism. But far more importantly, we were lucky enough to meet and work alongside some of the most accomplished journalists in the country for that approximate six-month period. It was an excellent, ongoing opportunity to learn from the best in the business, and all Herald newsgatherers were forever changed by that experience.
While there certainly have been exceptions, I'm happy to say that I've known a far greater number of conscientious and ethical journalists than slack, unethical ones. The former are a joy to work beside. The latter need to get out of the business as quickly as possible.
Should he lose his job over this? To me, absolutely, due to the addition of the ball not the legs or cord. However, it may be that he began the slip down the slop by the relatively innocuous removal of things like the cord and legs and since "graduated" to adding the ball. In his mind it might have been a small step to a disastrous end.
As a former reporter, I know that everyone present at any event has a different perspective than any other present. However, when my wife and I go out, we frequently wonder if we were sitting next to each other. We observed very different things.
Difference is what make the world go round,
Art
Photojournalism, for it to have any journalistic value, has to at least attempt to remain true to reality. Adding/removing objects is an obvious attempt to manipulate the viewer's response; adjusting contrast, burning, dodging, etc., is just a more subtle way of manipulating the viewer to elicit a response that likely would not have been elicited had the viewer witnessed the scene in person. What if you seriously burn in clouds to make a sky look far more ominous than it was? Nothing is being added or removed, but the content is being intentionally altered to misrepresent the scene and manipulate the viewer.
After all as photographers we all use tools available to us to achieve pleasing images. Compressing crowds with telephotos, using apertures to select what is in focus, etc. If photographers are going to be held to this high of a standard then editors must be as well. Case in point : I once had a news photographer show a group of us a photo he had taken of Rev. Billy Graham with a cane. The picture was printed in the newspaper cropped so the cane would not appear as the editor thought it would be better not to show Rev Graham on a cane. Given the same arguments should the editor not resign for altering the image ? What if the photographer had removed the cane in Photoshop ? The readers would have seen basicaly the same image.