NJFrank Loc: New Jersey

Well Chuck since I am not a photojournalist I have no qualms about taking something out or adding something to my final product. Unless I am taking a picture to document an event and what to keep it as true to real life as possible. I am usually not that successful at accomplishing the final results in PP. My PP skills leave something to be desired. That being said whether I am good at PP or not I see no moral crossroads to have cross when i alter a a final picture. I have seen some amazing shots and composites in UHH. The results of PP are terrific and if they were not "manipulated" the results could have left something to be desired.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Excellent point. Fascinating to think about!

I remember that heart wrenching, iconic Viet Nam war photo very well; not sure I had heard about the nearby photographer loading film. Talk about a whole different story depending on what you include in the frame and what you don't. Wow.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The scandal in 1972 was not an un-attended Kim Phuc {after all, Nick Ut was as capable as the other photographer was in potentially giving aid}; the scandal in 1972 was the use of napalm (*), which the photograph dramatized.

Hopefully everyone will agree that cropping is completely different from the other tools gimp, PhotoShop, etc give us, because going back to the time of Matthew Brady we could have accomplished the same result by where the photographer stood and where he aimed his camera.

I will have other comments on the other aspects of editing, but I need more time to organize my thoughts, and besides I find that discussions works better if a response is short and covers just one subject.


(*) and I'm guessing that the U.S. military was caught by surprise, because they had used essentially the same weapons against Japanese targets 27 years earlier, and no one had complained.

btbg

Since I am a photojournalist my thinking on this topic may not fit with those who have already commented.

There are several problems with altering images. Linda has already pointed out one of the problems. If the viewer believes that they have been deceived that is a problem.

The second problem has also been mentioned. Although it has commonly been considered perfectly legitimate to crop, sometimes the crop makes the photo deceptive because it takes the central image out of context and therefore misleads about what was actually happening. No problem in art, but a big problem in news photography even though it is commonplace. When the crop makes the image deceptive it skews how people feel about the story. An example of that was also taken in Vietnam when the Vietnamese Officer put his gun to a Viet Cong's head and ultimately executed him. Had the rest of the story been told instead of only that portion of the image it may have been received differently. The whole image and context would have shown that the officer was trying to save other's lifes, even if his methods were suspect. In stead it appeared to just show savagery by one side, when the other side had just done something equally barbaric. It became deceptive because it didn't tell the whole story, even though it wasn't altered, just cropped.

But there is a third possible problem with image manipulation that hasn't been discussed. Images capture, or at least used to capture a moment in time. That is no longer the case. Sky is bad, add a new sky. Telephone pole in the way, remove it. Photo needs a foreground element, lets add it. After all it doesn't really matter and we can do it.

The thing is it does end up mattering. A couple of days ago there was a photo posted from Moscow which had a set of buildings, some ice on water with ducks on the ice and then a very clear reflection of the buildings in the water. Someone commenting on the post immediately felt that the reflection had been added and the photo would be better without the manipulation. The thing that we fail to think about when we edit an image is we are making others cynical about the reality of photos such that they begin to question photos that haven't been manipulated, but instead have been the result of careful planning, being in the right location at the right time and great technical execution. Each time we alter a photo, even slightly without full honesty about what manipulation has been done we make people question the honesty and reality of completely unaltered and legitimate photos.

I could care less if you manipulate your images. I would be fired for doing that, but I don't care if you do. However, I care very much if because of the manipulation of others people begin to believe that my images have also been altered. Photography has always been art, but it has also always been a documentation of place and tie. When manipulated images are saved and not clearly labeled as to what has been altered we have now altered history. Sure that has been done before by cropping and or moving objects or people into our out of the photo. Sure images have been staged and altered in the past, but never to the extent that they have been now.

When we alter photos and don't clearly identify as part of the permanent record exactly what has been altered then we are altering history and that can be a big problem.

With that said, I have absolutely no problem with composite images, which are labeled as such. That is clearly art, and as long as it is clearly identified as art and not a representation of reality, no problem.

Removing powerlines, whatever. Removing a telephone pole, I guess you decide for yourself. After all the photographer could have cropped or moved to get the pole out of the image anyway. However, the example which has been given above of removing a shed in the background, that is way over the line, unless acknowledged. Why, because it can't be removed by other photographers by just moving their composition. It is part of the scene.

I don't care if you add seagulls to your image, but as for me, that is over the line, unless I am deliberately making and clearly identifying a composite image as art.

My reputation and my career is dependent on the fact that what I shoot really happened and that it is in appropriate context. I work diligently to make the best image possible, without alteration or manipulation. I don't care if you follow the same standard or not, but I deeply resent when people start questioning the honesty of my work because some other photographer was dishonest. And that's what is happening when others removed poles, powerlines, etc..... or add clouds or the moon or whatever else. It calls the honesty of my work into question, and I do have a problem with that.

Change any image you want. Just clearly label it as altered. Then no problem.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

My statements below should be read as if prefaced by:
"In my opinion..." or "It is my impression that..."

O.k.?

Hard core wildlife photographers try to fulfill two goals;
capture the best composition in camera as possible...AND a few more shots to frame more widely to provide some options for cropping if advisable. Cloning out a pesky twig is no sin. It's about the animal in its environment!

Avid landscapers would not commonly composit a soaring hawk, a few crows, or a "v" of geese unless such may be thought a positive compositional component of the final image. It's about the final image!

...and these positions seem reasonable to me.

Edit...I've gone back and read the comments re: documentary photography...they seem spot on.

Dave

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Now, considering the "broader" issues, so much depends on what use will be made of the image. Photography is actually my "second" hobby; I started off with an interest in railroads, and photography was initially as much an adjunct to that as anything else. Today I take pictures of lots of things {since my last message on this thread I was taking pictures of our black cat}, but I still take pictures related to my first hobby, railroading, and my wife's hobby, birds.

My experiences as a railroad hobbyist inform my views here. At railroad-hobby discussion forums, guys {and gals} spend a certain amount of time analyzing photographs, trying to learn what no one thought to write down. I try not to use words like "lie", "dishonest", and "ethics" in these discussions, because I generally do not assume bad motives. However, lets suppose that I remove a utility pole from a photo of a train parked at a station and further suppose that the modified {but not the original} image survived a century; I could easily see a future group of hobbyists comparing two photos taken at the same location but a few years apart, trying to determine whether that pole was added in the interim or whether I had "cheated" and removed that pole. Yes, I know that sounds far-fetched, but I have heard arguments of that very kind.

In fact, maybe fifteen years ago I posted a picture I had taken of the Chama NM depot in 1971. Chama is the home of a railroad which preserves a small part of the narrow gauge railroad which covered much of the mountains in that area, and is the focus of much preservationist interest. The web-site where I posted the image has storage issues, so they limit images to 120K. One of the guys who saw my image is over-seeing an effort to restore the telegraph system which used to run along the railroad; he asked me for a copy of the original image because he was very interested in an ugly box at the top of a pole adjacent to the depot - he had never seen a picture of that ugly box before, and a full-pixel version of my image might be his best source of information about that ugly box. The depot is cute enough; the box was ugly enough. I easily could have cropped out or removed that ugly box, and he would have lacked the very limited information provided by my image.

As I have commented many times here, I am not an artist, but I understand and respect art. I view my images more as preserving life as it actually is, which is why I personally don't like to modify my images because I never know what information {or mis-information} someone might glean from them.

btbg

I agree with you entirely. We do document life and details matter in history.

IowaGuy Loc: Iowa

Emphasis added to the posters comments.

Right On! The important thing is how the image is represented. If clearly labeled as modified, that might be alright. However, after a time, the representation of the image as modified will be lost. Then there will be a problem of truth.

I am a not a professional photographer. I would like to think that I strive to make 'fine art photos'. When I make an image I have an intent of what I intend to do with it, but I do not add or remove objects to any image than could be mistaken for a truthful representation. I do use masking, layers, adjustment curves and the likes.

This problem is pervasive. It also has led to several award winning photographs retraction due to alterations with software.

just my $0.02

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

So thoughtfully written; thank you for joining in, btbg!

I think we're already past the point of much of the public not trusting most images as real, and always wanting to know if "photoshopped." The effect this cultural shift has on photojournalism or any photographer who adheres to strict personal rules regarding pp...that is a very, very interesting point of discussion!

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Very well stated, Dave. I like these points a lot! Maybe in a tiny way they related to why I was reluctant to add crows to my sunrise over the cornfield that Chuck referenced. I was more into the purity of the moment.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Wonderful points to ponder!

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

This could be what it all boils down to. That, and what happens if the "disclaimer" is subsequently lost. So much to consider!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

In fact, when refreshing my mind about the "Kim Phuc " incident, I discovered that even back in 1972, President Nixon's first response {according to the taping system that later got him removed from office}, was to suspect manipulation of the photo. This is not a new phenomenon - experts have had that capability - but now even we amateurs can do that kind of thing.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Good point!

btbg

Of course it's not a new phenomenon. However, it used to be somewhat uncommon and is now becoming way too commonplace. The individuals who pointed out that even when labeled as altered at a later date that label could be lost have an excellent point. The present is often judged in the future by what we write and what we record in art or photography.

In this day and age when everyone has a camera on their phone there is more documentation of what happens than ever before. There is also more manipulation of images than was ever possible before. Consider the National geographic photographer who has admitted to altering photos after getting caught on a poorly done manipulation.

It turns out that he removed objects from the background of the green-eyed Afghani girl, removed a rider from a rickshaw in china, etc... If you did that for your own use that's not a problem. But National Geographic claims to truthfully document the life and times that they photograph. It is no longer truthful once it is altered.

I really admire good composite photos. They take talent to create and can be very interesting. It is something that I have played around with a little bit in my spare time. The problem is that we are blurring the difference between fantasy and reality and are consequently calling legitimate work into question. That is a big problem. A small group of people adding seagulls, or clouds, or crows, or whatever are calling the legitimacy of all documentary photography into question. Not good.