St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Published on January 18, 2012 by Michael Zhang

The Washington Post raised some eyebrows last Friday after running an uber-saturated front page photo with the caption stating that it was “a composite created by taking several photos and combining them with computer software to transcend the visual limitations of standard photography.” After emailing the photo editor, Poynter learned that the image was simply an HDR photograph. While it’s a pretty common technique these days, some believe that it has no place in photojournalism,

Sean Elliot, president of the National Press Photographers Association, said, “HDR is not appropriate for documentary photojournalism.” The organization’s code of ethics say photographers should respect the integrity of the digital moment, “and in that light an HDR photo is no different from any other digital manipulation.”

“By using HDR,” he told me by email, “The Washington Post has combined different moments, and thereby created an image that does not exist. The aircraft visible in the final product was not there for all the other moments combined into the final, and that alone simply raises too many questions about the factual validity of the actual published image.” [#]

What complicates matters is that many new cameras (e.g. Nikon D4, Apple iPhone 4S) offer HDR features that create single images from multiple exposures in the camera. The Washington Post published a response to the controversy yesterday. Do you think HDR is an appropriate technique for photojournalists to use?

(via The Washington Post via Poynter)

http://petapixel.com/2012/01/18/is-hdr-acceptable-in-photojournalism

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Steven, absolutely not.
Its no secret, except to the uninitiated, what IS, and what is NOT acceptable.
One only has to go to Rueters website under the rules of photojournalism to know what is acceptable. It's pretty cut and dry, and there are FEW grey areas, if any, if you are an actual photojournalist. ;-)
SS

Rongnongno Loc: FL

This debate over PP in any form of news has and is still taking place.

You/we see PPed picture all the time and stopped paying attention. They are all over in the middle east conflicts. Same as pictures are being 'recycled' to report false news of death and mayhem.

In my opinion PPing has no place in news journalism but at the same time we cannot avoid being exposed to it.

mongoose777 Loc: Frisco Texas

Better to let the photo editor do with whatever they wish to do.
It all comes down to what story they are looking for, but leave it to them.
Many photogs out there think what may look great to them, may in fact
be horrendous to the editor or Photo Agency.
If thats the case, then you just lost out in an opportunity to make money.

Grnway Loc: Manchester, NH

Besides it being against the rules, as SharpShooter points out, I remain unimpressed with the quality of what HDR produces, in my limited use of it. I do a lot of outdoor shooting with my subject(s) in the foreground and snow in the background. You'd think "Ahh, what a great time for HDR!" But it just doesn't work out that well.
Not to mention that in photojournalism, the subject may move during the multiple exposures of the HDR process.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Post process of images isn't the same thing as putting a different story under the same image...not at all.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

It has no place in PJ as do any other forms of post processing manipulation.

blackest Loc: Ireland

I think it's dishonest if portrayed as the truth but then again all journalism is a bit suspect to one degree or another. If you have ever been involved in a news story has it ever been reported accurately?

In my personal experience the facts never get in the way of a good story. Most photography is selective unless its something like footage from a fixed cctv camera, after all everyone wants to get the 'best shot'.

I guess maybe the most famous journalistic photograph
is raising the flag at IWO JIMA

http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/?dod-date=223

This happened twice, but only the second time was it photographed.

There shouldn't be a place for mocked up imagery in news reports, and if it is used it should be declared as such.

CTTonymm Loc: Connecticut

Two different things - Composites generally refer to inserting one part of an image into another image, such as replacing a face with the eyes open into a group shot image where that individuals eyes were closed or replacing a dull sky with a more interesting sky. HDR is a blending of more than one shot of the same subject in order to more closely resemble what our eyes/brain "see" when we look at the subject or scene. It expands detail range on both ends of the exposure range in the final image - detail that was there - not something that was not there. So, to in my opinion, HDR is photo-journalism - a more accurate view of what was actually there.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

If only all editors would read the UHH, and follow our sage advice.

davefales Loc: Virginia

Sounds to me like some high priests have their noses out of joint. So "photojournalism" has inviolate rules that will not accommodate new technology?

I think the photo in question was acceptable to my eyes. I do not feel somehow deceived. What else really matters?

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

It's not about new technology. No, it shouldn't be allowed. While there are instances where it would not change the image's meaning or content, who decides if it does ?... That's why it shouldn't be allowed in PJ... Fine Art or otherwise, no problems, just not PJ. It isn't allowed in court proceedings either as digital images are too easy to manipulate...

davefales Loc: Virginia

That may be inaccurate:

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/admissibilityofdigital.html

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

If you read the article, there are many stipulations. An image taken, by other than a forensic photographer, would have a hard time meeting many of those stipulations...

Rongnongno Loc: FL

The mention of using 'old' images to illustrate a newer story is part of the same problem. Recycling is an unethical and as much as a lie so everything is tied, like it or not.

As to using PP... when the PP involves adding folks (remember the previous administration multiplying the soldiers around the a****???) or column of smoke (Palestine) or N Korea, removing/adding folks how about the Soviet union? Cuba? France? The US?

PP has always been used to modify the information enhance a part of an image and doing so distort the viewer perspective. PP is not simple 'developing' but a slew of other things. That is why it is not acceptable in the news. HDR is PP.

Once again, this HDR 'controversy' this is not news either. The controversy dates from Jan 2012... Result? a puff of smoke. Now you see HDR in local newspaper and that with no warning that the image is PPed.