I really don't want to start a debate on digital photography ethics or the nature of truth here, so please start your own topic if you want to re-visit this
All I need is to understand the consensus of opinion on this one question:
If a publisher were to flip an image (either horizontally or vertically) to better fit a page layout, would you feel that the integrity/truth of the photo has been undermined?
I'm just looking at my employer's brand guidelines and want to see how other photographers feel about this particular issue. A simple yes or no will be quite sufficient as I understand the issues fully and there is no right or wrong answer
Thanks
Andrew
Posted by Colin Crowdey on January 13, 2009 at 7:27 AM
hello
The short answer is no - the long answer is better left for another day and another debate
cheers
Colin
Posted by tony flashman on January 13, 2009 at 7:35 AM
I had a Waxwing image published in last Wednesday's Daily Express, they flipped the shot so the bird was facing the text. Only the guy that did the artwork and myself would ever know.
If a publisher were to flip an image (either horizontally or vertically) to better fit a page layout, would you feel that the integrity/truth of the photo has been undermined?
If the subject is flipped so that it is facing right instead of left, as taken, and the essential truth of the image is maintained, then I see no problem. In fact, I have been known to suggest flipping an image in order to improve its composition.
Basically, only the photographer knows the whole truth about any image, no one else rarely cares..
I`d say, `it depends`! For a bird-on-a-stick photo, I don`t think it makes much difference which way the bird is facing. For a landscape, flipping the picture can give an entirely false impression. I mention this because I recently sold an image of Rhossili beach on Gower to a national paper - I think it was The Telegraph. Anyone who`s been there knows that as you look down onto the beach, the sea is on the left, and Rhossili Down - a hill - is on the right. Presumably mistakenly, the image had been flipped so the sea was on the right and the Down on the left! I was quite annoyed, and no doubt anyone who read the article and subsequently decided on a day-trip to Rhossili was left rather disorientated!
But 'yes' if you're portraying a specific/individual 'famous' animal or location which has ID'able features - then it's more a case of saving the publisher the embarrassment of it being pointed out...
Posted by David Sewell on January 13, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Generally I would have no problem with flipping, although as John says it can be daft when done vertically and, yes, I have seen it happen.
David
Posted by Andrew Forsyth on January 13, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Thanks all,
Now, Nick anticipated the next phase of my question (one point to you):
People, events, landscapes. I'm guessing that this is generally thought to be unacceptable?
But what about recognisable wildlife photos? For example a remote-triggered portrait of a snow leopard, is it ok to flip that too? I'm guessing that most people would say that this is a bad idea as it will indeed cause embarrassment.
Which leaves us with a policy of 'do it but make sure that you can get away with it'. Are we all comfortable with that?
No criticisms here, just getting a feel for the consensus...
In engineering there is an old phrase “If it looks right, then invariably it is right”.
Flipping a landscape building etc, then NO as you are altering the truth of the original subject, but wildlife in general then YES,
The key to it is not so much the main subject, but more the environment, using your example, a Snow Leopard in the snow, YES, but with a recognisable mountain range in the distance, is a NO, NO. Another consideration is the direction that the light is falling on the subject, and whether it is possible when flipped, for the light to fall as now shown. I’m sure others will think of other examples.
As I said, if it's a 'generic' image... no issues.
People, events, landscapes - depends if you can get away with it really. If the image shows something which has a 'handedness' or asymmetry associated with it then no - eg someone playing a musical instrument, an instrument, music, writing - it would be noticeable. Flipped images of heritage sites - as Jeremy pointed out - can also lead to embarrassment later.
In the case of Steve's Snow Leopard images, it wouldn't be a good idea - the prior publications show them one way, and it would stick out like a sore thumb if they where flipped. It's not a matter of 'truth', simply that they have been presented in a particular manner and that is what the viewer expects to see. If someone flipped the Mona Lisa, then most wouldn't quite be able to put our finger on what was wrong, but would be uncomfortable as the picture wouldn't 'feel' right. Again, if someone where to flip Big Ben, then again at first glance it would look OK, then your brain would eventually prod itself into thinking 'hang on' there's something wrong, then figure the numbers where reversed.
Now, if someone flipped an image of a footprint from left to right in a case where evidence was presented.... that's a different thing .
It really has to be done on a case by case basis, and if it's done, then you probably need a few pairs of 'disinterested eyes' to double check there's no clangers being dropped.
With portraits, I often will flip a portrait and slip it in to their selection as the client will be happier looking at a photograph of themselves in a familiar way (i.e. in a mirror). It's a bit of psychology but you'll be amazed at the number of times a client will pass over 'normal' images and pick the flipped one without realising why
From a news photo perspective, it's a big 'no no' on the whole. If it's reportage from an event, then any kind of manipulation is heavily frowned on. A photographer recently took the decision to 'remove' the feet sticking out from under a fence as they spoiled the composition. They added nothing to the photo and in no way altered the truth of the image (they had no bearing on the subject) and yet when it was discovered that the image had been manipulated in this way, the photographer was dismissed (Washington Post I seem to recall). For this reason there would be few circumstances when flipping an image would be acceptable.
In wildlife, does the flipping a flower, plant, insect etc really change the truth of the image. Rarely I would suggest so in these circumstances, you can flippin' flip all you like
How do the publishers not know we have flipped it before we send it? Western Society tends to read top down and left right therefore many submitted images are possible already flipped for that convention.
Now with competitions it may be a no-no for it is not the truth of what the photographer saw at the time but a mirror image. In the case of the leopard it would diminism the image for it would not 'flow' as well to the western eye.
T
Posted by Graeme Lee on January 13, 2009 at 4:56 PM
I agree with what's been siad. Wildlife seems fine to be flipped and it wouldn't bother me if someone flipped my image. The fact someone paid for my image would be enough.........and somewhat surprising
Thanks very much again one and all. This is all valuable input into the discussions I'm having with stakeholders.
"Now, if someone flipped an image of a footprint from left to right in a case where evidence was presented.... that's a different thing ." Nick
Nick - don't worry, everything that is presented in court is 'as shot' and goes through independent processing straight out of the camera.
There are such a wide variety of images used by my employer (RSPCA) that developing a sensible digital manipulation policy that covers all types of images (wildlife, news events, evidence etc) at all stages of their use (evidence becomes PR after case completion, for example) is quite complex.
The main question that this throws up is whether some 'manipulation' (like the practice of flipping 'generic' wildlife images) will undermine the audiences faith in other images that would never be altered? It's easy to put a ban on flipping images as a precaution, but this is seriously restrictive for layout. One to ponder a little while longer I think.
Discussion
19 repliesAll I need is to understand the consensus of opinion on this one question:
If a publisher were to flip an image (either horizontally or vertically) to better fit a page layout, would you feel that the integrity/truth of the photo has been undermined?
I'm just looking at my employer's brand guidelines and want to see how other photographers feel about this particular issue. A simple yes or no will be quite sufficient as I understand the issues fully and there is no right or wrong answer
Thanks
Andrew
The short answer is no - the long answer is better left for another day and another debate
cheers
Colin
Tony
No.
Basically, only the photographer knows the whole truth about any image, no one else rarely cares..
Bottom line, NO problem.
JR
Phil
But 'yes' if you're portraying a specific/individual 'famous' animal or location which has ID'able features - then it's more a case of saving the publisher the embarrassment of it being pointed out...
David
Now, Nick anticipated the next phase of my question (one point to you):
People, events, landscapes. I'm guessing that this is generally thought to be unacceptable?
But what about recognisable wildlife photos? For example a remote-triggered portrait of a snow leopard, is it ok to flip that too? I'm guessing that most people would say that this is a bad idea as it will indeed cause embarrassment.
Which leaves us with a policy of 'do it but make sure that you can get away with it'. Are we all comfortable with that?
No criticisms here, just getting a feel for the consensus...
In engineering there is an old phrase “If it looks right, then invariably it is right”.
Flipping a landscape building etc, then NO as you are altering the truth of the original subject, but wildlife in general then YES,
The key to it is not so much the main subject, but more the environment, using your example, a Snow Leopard in the snow, YES, but with a recognisable mountain range in the distance, is a NO, NO. Another consideration is the direction that the light is falling on the subject, and whether it is possible when flipped, for the light to fall as now shown. I’m sure others will think of other examples.
Interested in seeing what others think.
People, events, landscapes - depends if you can get away with it really. If the image shows something which has a 'handedness' or asymmetry associated with it then no - eg someone playing a musical instrument, an instrument, music, writing - it would be noticeable. Flipped images of heritage sites - as Jeremy pointed out - can also lead to embarrassment later.
In the case of Steve's Snow Leopard images, it wouldn't be a good idea - the prior publications show them one way, and it would stick out like a sore thumb if they where flipped. It's not a matter of 'truth', simply that they have been presented in a particular manner and that is what the viewer expects to see. If someone flipped the Mona Lisa, then most wouldn't quite be able to put our finger on what was wrong, but would be uncomfortable as the picture wouldn't 'feel' right. Again, if someone where to flip Big Ben, then again at first glance it would look OK, then your brain would eventually prod itself into thinking 'hang on' there's something wrong, then figure the numbers where reversed.
Now, if someone flipped an image of a footprint from left to right in a case where evidence was presented.... that's a different thing
It really has to be done on a case by case basis, and if it's done, then you probably need a few pairs of 'disinterested eyes' to double check there's no clangers being dropped.
With portraits, I often will flip a portrait and slip it in to their selection as the client will be happier looking at a photograph of themselves in a familiar way (i.e. in a mirror). It's a bit of psychology but you'll be amazed at the number of times a client will pass over 'normal' images and pick the flipped one without realising why
From a news photo perspective, it's a big 'no no' on the whole. If it's reportage from an event, then any kind of manipulation is heavily frowned on. A photographer recently took the decision to 'remove' the feet sticking out from under a fence as they spoiled the composition. They added nothing to the photo and in no way altered the truth of the image (they had no bearing on the subject) and yet when it was discovered that the image had been manipulated in this way, the photographer was dismissed (Washington Post I seem to recall). For this reason there would be few circumstances when flipping an image would be acceptable.
In wildlife, does the flipping a flower, plant, insect etc really change the truth of the image. Rarely I would suggest so in these circumstances, you can flippin' flip all you like
How do the publishers not know we have flipped it before we send it? Western Society tends to read top down and left right therefore many submitted images are possible already flipped
Now with competitions it may be a no-no for it is not the truth of what the photographer saw at the time but a mirror image. In the case of the leopard it would diminism the image for it would not 'flow' as well to the western eye.
T
"Now, if someone flipped an image of a footprint from left to right in a case where evidence was presented.... that's a different thing ." Nick
Nick - don't worry, everything that is presented in court is 'as shot' and goes through independent processing straight out of the camera.
There are such a wide variety of images used by my employer (RSPCA) that developing a sensible digital manipulation policy that covers all types of images (wildlife, news events, evidence etc) at all stages of their use (evidence becomes PR after case completion, for example) is quite complex.
The main question that this throws up is whether some 'manipulation' (like the practice of flipping 'generic' wildlife images) will undermine the audiences faith in other images that would never be altered? It's easy to put a ban on flipping images as a precaution, but this is seriously restrictive for layout. One to ponder a little while longer I think.
Thanks again,
Andrew