pfrancke Loc: cold Maine

beautifully taken - and edited fish ladder - photography in today's world is just part of an image's pipeline. Many, many things happen to an image, many different pipelines exist. Photography itself is of many, many different types and purposes. All captured in one word. And everyone that hears that word has a different idea about what it means. Camera's are but tools, very, very flexible tools.

So, we have the hammers, and we have hammering. The nail organization has certain standards, as does the body shop. When I buy a hammer and wish to use it to knock some tiles loose, it is ok to do so. If a hammer is used to kill someone, then perhaps we can control hammers being allowed onto airplanes, but ... the hammer didn't kill the victim, the hammering did...

in a similar vein, software (like photoshop) is also a tool used for an incredible amount of purpose. It really boggles my mind that such powerful tools are available for use by the general public. Such tools are more powerful than the largest tank in their ability to change and shape the world we live in.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Thanks for liking my fish ladder, Piet! And I was careful to reveal in the caption that it's a composite so it should not be a problem.

To the larger point, it strikes me that if it's just a matter of a little code, heck, I don't know much about the tech involved but maybe they could just send out a firmware upgrade and every camera could have that extension. That would be the "drug test" that Time and Newsweek and Sports Illustrated and the AP and all of them need to verify that, say, a random object (with absolutely no news value but rules is rules) hasn't been 'shopped out of a newspicture. If the news organizations are paranoid enough to fire photographers that stray, or to eliminate vast numbers of pictures because they might (?!) be faked, why in the world would they not want the technology to "drug test" pictures?

I have never belonged to a camera club or other organization that regularly judges submissions, but I have read here and elsewhere that, at least some of the time in some of the clubs, there are very strict rules, some sounding as if "'shopping" is flat-out forbidden! And I think, Well jeepers, does that mean I can't open a shadow or use a graduated filter on a sky? Obviously I couldn't show my fish ladder, but I mentioned someplace that I have never shown any picture that wasn't "finished," run through a program to make it better. I think of SOOC originals, whether Jpegs or Raw, to be the equivalent of negatives. To me, a negative must be printed, and rarely did I ever make a "straight" print because I always saw something that needed improving.

pfrancke Loc: cold Maine

About those contests... I'm guessing that for some groups, the "in camera" is what it is about. So more power too them. About disclosure, my only issue is the time it takes to do... I see my efforts as being "artistic - but untalented" if you follow the drift, and I see no need to append "image has been manipulated" to every shot I might post.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Artistic but untalented?! I've looked at your Flickr, Piet. Honestly you make me a little jealous!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

This part of your post does an excellent job of describing me, and perhaps why sometimes a "5 minute photo stop" takes me 35 minutes to finish.

On the other hand, the intent for this section, as expressed in the READ ME FIRST is "This is where we have honest, respectful and open, conversations about art, in all its forms, with an emphasis on photography", and we all know that the great artists of photography, people like Ansel Adams, accomplished at least as much in the dark room as in the field. As an admitted non-artist, that leaves me in a quandary at times as to whether my viewpoint is even relevant.

When I first read your title for this thread I was bothered by the inclusion of "ethics", because I don't want to talk about the "ethics of PP" ... I'm not one to say that including or excluding Linda's crows is an ethical decision. The conclusion I've tentatively reached is that ethics applies not to what we do, but to how we present what we do. If a contract restricts PP, then we have to follow those restrictions; we always need to be open and honest about what changes were made {no, that doesn't necessarily mean a 24-point announcement}, and I'm not convinced that we have a better defense against "misdeeds" than ethics,.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

I have been very pleased with the honest, respectful and open conversation we've been having in this thread! I included 'ethics' because I've read, and engaged in other conversations about the ethics of photomanipulation in all its forms. Some folks eschew all PP. That's fine! On the other hand Saint Ansel himself admitted that Moonrise was a pretty lousy negative and he spent a lot of time dragging decent prints out of it. That's fine too. I think he enjoyed it, but in my wet darkroom days, while I enjoyed whistling along to the classical music on the radio, sometimes a big print run was a boring chore, especially if there was a lot of manipulation necessary.

I can't recall when I started my "full disclosure" statements on my Flickr pages for shots that had been grossly 'shopped, but I think it was something I read here on the 'hog, probably a discussion much like this one. I don't mind letting folks know that I've added a boat or a seagull or some fish, and if it helps keep other photographers honest, and protect the reputations of photographers who never add or subtract anything, I think it's a good and right thing to do. I often cite the "advantage" painters have; they can add or subtract or change anything they want. Trompe l'oeil literally translates from French to mean "fools the eye," but such painters also had the "advantage" of being able to choose what went in or stayed out. That's one reason I don't personally have a problem with subtracting a distraction or adding something to improve a picture. But it's also true that no one should be fooled into thinking that a painting is anything but a painting, even trompe l'oeil, but people almost from the beginning have tended to view photographs as "truth." Thus I think when photographs overtly lie it shocks and offends people. Of course, the photograph "lies" at its inception simply by the frame, what stays in, what's framed out, and so on ad infinitum. But do not think for one second that your viewpoint is "not relevant." Of course it is! And I'm delighted you joined in! Thanks!

btbg

Whether you realized it or not you just hit on the problem of software tests to show the validity of photos. Software could easily be made to test to make sure that no alteration of any kind has been done to an image. However, certain alterations have been considered acceptable, namely cropping, adjusting contrast, adjusting exposure, and a few other "minor tweaks" If you built in code that identified alterations, it would be difficult if not impossible to filter out "legitimate" post processing from changes that are over the line.

In spite of the argument that I have made I have no problem with those who alter images such as the fish ladder photo that was just posted. I think it's great that you are able to make the image that you envisioned that tells the story of your visit to that place. Since it is clearly labeled as what it is, there is no issue of any kind. I don't even see a grey area. Where the issue becomes complex is when the image is not clearly labeled, or when the use of the image is in an area that requires no alteration.

Example, lets say that someone saw your image of the fish viewing window and wanted to use it in a news publication. Now it becomes a problem, because by news standards they can't use it, but they may or not know that it is altered unless you have been totally truthful with them. You obviously have been, but not everyone is so ethical.

The entire news industry is wrestling with this very issue. In the nine years that I have been involved in the newspaper industry I have been sent to three separate seminars, or workshops, whatever you want to call them that have attempted to address this very issue.

Multiple news photographers have been fired in the last six or seven years for what at first glance seems to be very minor alterations. Why? Because people already don't trust the news, and are right to be suspicious. A fake photo, even in a harmless situation further erodes that trust. It's a risk that many in the news industry are unwilling to take. Yet, when you get to a contest, suddenly a huge portion of the contestants have either cheated, or the cheating that has occurred calls their photo into question. So obviously the cheating is still occurring.

There is no good answer. Obviously you can do whatever you want with your images. That's your right. However for the sake of the entire photography industry as well as your own credibility should those of you who are hobbyists ever wish to become professionals, I still believe that full disclosure is imperative. In the case of the images that have been shown with this post, that hasn't been an issue. Everyone has freely said what alterations they have done. That's the way that I think that it should be.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

It didn't occur to me, and probably not to Piet either, that software would only be able to detect that something had been done, but not what, rendering it pretty much useless. By that measure I wouldn't be able to show or sell a single picture since I always tweak, crop, straighten, open shadow, raise/lower contrast, all of which I presume would be picked up and the picture condemned as "fake," but in my case I'd say over 90% of my pictures are "straight" photography, just tweaked.

As you say, there is no good answer. When I was working 90% of my stuff was straight, except it was during that godawful period in wedding photography when we were using matte boxes to make double and triple exposures of candles and stained glass and hurl! Ya had to offer it because some brides with impossibly big hair insisted on it. I was pretty good at it and it still embarrasses me. But stuff like that was literally transparently fake, and other kinds of fakery were harder to do and often pretty obvious.

I think the only solution for the moment is to be transparent, to ethically post a disclaimer on "'shopped" pictures, and I have no clue what press photographers are supposed to do, beyond either don't cheat or don't get caught. I started out thinking that the AP firing Narciso Contreras was over the top because it was "such a little thing," but thanks to you I get it: it's the simple issue of trust, and indeed hardly anybody trusts the media these days (thanks to a some people actively and publicly accusing the mainstream media of being "dishonest" as often and loudly as possible). Even the god-a-mighty New York Times had to fire a reporter for writing imagined stories, and there are numerous other sad examples. I wonder sometimes if the urge to cheat is motivated by the pressure cooker of competition even within an organization, the drive to excel and even exceed. It actually starts in school and peaks in high school with the pressure to get into college, and not just any college but the best college, and then you have to excel and exceed to get the best job, where the pressure is on to earn your keep, to produce...

A question occurred to me regarding the fish ladder: What if the dam officials spotted that picture on Flickr and asked to use it in a brochure? Of course I would be sure they saw the disclaimer, but since it would be used for advertising rather than news, would there be a problem? I don't think so, but...

pfrancke Loc: cold Maine

Those that advertise seem to not mind exaggeration. But I hear ya..

About the press - my cynicism is not with what the reporter in the trenches does, it is with the upper management selection process of what stories get told and why. If I ran that industry (and I don't), and I was interested in "doing right" (whatever that might mean), I would want to include the "success" stories as often as the "defeat" stories. And of course I am not talking about winning a soccer game as being a success story.

Yes -- we (people, corporations) are all driven - unfortunately, by the wrong types of things. Intentions often start out right - in my industry, there was this idea of "lessons learned". Fine on the surface, and fine when used sincerely, but ultimately, it becomes a game where cheap solutions to difficult problems become the norm. A game of "pretending" to fix something. A shallow, disgusting game that prevents the true progress that it was originally intended to achieve.

pfrancke Loc: cold Maine

About detecting edits... It is a simple, but expensive procedure... The original and the edit are both presented, a review board reviews the edit and decides if the spirit of the image has been modified (does the image now tell a lie). Yes - we all want to be efficient, but yes, we could use more jobs too. If an image needs to be "vetted", it can be vetted, we (as a society) just choose to use the cheaper solution of catching and firing periodically - to send the message that we care and that honesty is important. Just not important enough to pay for...

btbg

You can do that if the original is a jpeg file, but its a little more complex if the original is raw. What software you open a raw file in can change it's appearance. Canon raw files opened in Canon software look exactly like the jpeg file if not altered as they are opened, but the same file opened in arc won't look the same as the jpeg. You are correct though if it is jpeg, and even if it is raw, obvious changes such as cloning would be caught.

btbg

Upper management in newspapers isn't what most people think it is. There is a prevailing believe among conservatives that there is media bias to the left. At least in some cases it is true. Yet upper management tends to be conservative leaning. It is middle management that tends to be to the left. Example, the owner of our corporation is quite conservative. As you know, Oregon allows marijuana use. The corporate owner did not allow individual papers the right to editorialize for or against it's usage when the ballot measure was about to be voted on. All editorials on the subject had to come from corporate. We are also subject to random drug tests for both marijuana or alcohol consumption. I've never had a random test, but it is in the contract.

He is also conservative on most social issues. On the flip side, most of the company's publishers graduated from University of Oregon with degrees in journalism. U of O tends to be very liberal, and the publishers tend to be largely liberal as well.

However, even that doesn't account for the bias that is seen in our local, twice a week newspaper. That bias is often caused by the turnaround time of assigned stories and the availability of individuals to interview.

Example, there is a controversy at a school board meeting. When the meeting is over the reporter who covered the meeting is expected to write about it. So what usually ends up happening is the reporter talks to the school superintendent, the principal of any school that would be impacted by the decision that was made, and the school board members. Why because the reporter has those individuals phone numbers. However, the individuals who testified at the meeting opposed to the decision that was made their opinion is only covered with a quote or two from the meeting. Why? because the reporter does not have their phone number.

The problem becomes even worse if a decision is made without public input because the reporter doesn't even know who might be against the decision let alone how to get hold of them.

Since the people most commonly used as interview subjects for the paper tend to be local city officials, federal government spokespersons, or school employees the stories naturally have a slant towards their viewpoints since there isn't time to go looking for other people to interview prior to when the story has to be written.

The other issue that impacts what the papers cover is you can only cover what you know about. If someone is arrested the news of record records that and the newspaper has access so they know about the story. On the other hand if someone does a good deed, there is no news of record that reports good news, so it often goes unreported, not because the reporter isn't interested, but because they don't even know about it until well after the fact.

Newspapers and from what I've been told talking to sports videographers at the local television stations TV news has the same problem. We are so short staffed that there is no one to do any type of investigative reporting. You crank out so many stories a week and then you are expected to produce three or four special sections each year. Between the day to day assignments and the special sections there is little or no time to hunt for human interest or success stories.

I used to think it was a conscious decision to report one thing and exclude another. I'm not so sure now. Three weeks ago there was a team roping event locally. There were three other sports events the same day. The other three were in town, the team roping would have required an hour drive each way. I went to a portion of each of the three events that were in town and missed the team roping. All three events in town immediately sent results while the team roping still hasn't. I know it happened. I know who won, but I know nothing else, so I can't report on it.

As with most small town papers the employees wear more than one hat. I am the sports photographer. I am the sports reporter. I am the sports editor. I am the sports page layout and composition person. I am the resident ambulance chaser and am sent to fires etc... as well as any photography situations that are low light. I get paid for 40 hours a week and work at least 50.

Sure there are a lot of success stories out there. I would love to cover some of them. However, often it isn't even feasible. Small town papers do better about telling success stories than big newspapers, not because we care more, but because we are more likely to hear about the success story. Still much gets missed because of time, knowledge of the event, space, and the availability of accessible individuals to interview.

The other thing that often happens is someone will come in and tell us of a heartwarming human interest story. Example recently a single mother had her car stolen. Another individual in town heard about it and gave her a car. Great story, but that individual refused to talk to the paper and made it clear that they did not want their name in the paper. So what did we run? Two paragraphs that told that she had been given a car and was grateful, which sadly was buried in the back of the paper because there was no photo or anything else to go with in and really not much information. Happens all the time. Get an interesting story but the individuals involved won't talk to the paper.

With all that said, even though I work for a paper there are times when I am also cynical.

pfrancke Loc: cold Maine

the reality of day-to-day life is fascinating and I thank you for restoring some of my confidence in human nature!

In my industry, I have seen occasions were massive amounts of money get misspent. The lower-level employees did everything in their power to be heard, but ultimately they were shut down. In my heart I still don't know if those in charge were "bought and paid for", or if they were just stupid. I am sure that stupid goes a long ways, especially when there are many links that need to be traversed.

Sometimes the people that know what is going on, just don't talk smoothly, while those destructive beings without ethics, well, they have the gift of gab.

And of course, we are all parts of systems, cogs in a machine, a machine that is out of our control and that runs itself. Those that benefit from such a machine, will do everything they can to oil it up and keep it smooth, so some of this is the war between the haves and the have-nots. Liberal or conservative are (to me anyway) just patterns of behavior that have been clearly defined and have by virtue of having aged, become corrupt. I think the reason I am most stirred up at the news industry, is that there was a time (well there was a perception anyway), that they were there to serve the interests of the common man - getting the truth out - and no one else has ever picked up that role. You do honorable work. Don't ever give up!