The Ethics of Photo Manipulation

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

When you catch a thief, his first line of defense is "I did not do it," and the second "So what? Everyone does it."

[barryfitzgerald]

"The lie begins in the camera." See my blog "Dirty Tricks or Photographic Arts." www.artsconflicted.wordpress.com

I'll quote from that.

"As the well-known American photographer Edward Steichen said, “Every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible.” And who in their right mind believes in a realism that witnessed the raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima, or the testing of the atomic bomb at Bikini atoll in black and white. That reality is limited to those who are colour blind"


Probably the biggest load of nonsense I've ever read in my life.
Sure the flag raising on Iwo Jima was staged, but there are plenty of street/documentary/war photographers who capture moments that are "real and genuine"
Steichen may have had an opinion, but he's well off the mark. Again it's all or nothing on this debate, that's a serious error to make.

Not all photos are lies, not all photographers intend on deceiving the viewer either. And adjusting WB/contrast/exposure etc and other corrective measures isn't my idea of "extensive manipulation" not even close.
The arguments are incredibly weak coming from the every photo is processed camp.

[Isaac]

Barry, we are not talking about "PJ type reportage shots" so

- why do you think adding/removing elements is deceitful?

- what rules do you think are being broken that could be called cheating, and who imposed those rules?

[RFPhotography]

But it's true, Barry.  Every photo is processed or manipulated in some way or other.  Whether the extent is minimal or great, the fact is every photo is manipulated in some way.  That is simply a fact.  Denying the fact doesn't make it any less factual.

As has been said before, not sure in this thread but if not then elsewhere, every decision a photographer makes influences what the end result is.  From film choice to processing to lens focal length to shutter speed to aperture.  Carry over to digital and if the photog is shooting JPEG then the picture style chosen essentially replaces the film choice/processing.  All play a part in what the photographer wants to convey.  Yes, there are some images that are taken as, almost, reactions where the photog has little time to compose or make those other decisions.  But even in those situations, the image is still manipulated to some small degree.  The greater the extent of the manipulation, the greater influence the photographer has on the viewer and the message.  That's precisely why in the areas of documentary and journalism the post-capture manipulation is to be kept to a minimum.  So that the viewer sees something as close to what was happening as possible; taking into account the other ways the photographer can influence the end result.  

[barryfitzgerald]

I think it's time for some folks to brush on their dictionary skills here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_manipulation

Photo manipulation (also called photoshopping or—before the rise of Photoshop software—airbrushing) is the application of image editing techniques to photographs in order to create an illusion or deception (in contrast to mere enhancement or correction), through analog or digital means

That's quite a clear definition and the Wiki article demonstrated what manipulation means and many examples.

Now what that has to do with what many of us do, is basically nothing at all! Pretty much closed case. Adjustment or even enhancement are not manipulation, how anyone could argue otherwise is beyond me. It is very obvious to most of us, so maybe you guys who don't understand can try to convey what's so hard to grasp. You seem to apply an inappropriate term for describing all forms of processing being it in camera, at a lab with a roll of film, or do normal editing in software/raw. They are not manipulation that is quite obvious.

So again I reject the term all photos are lies, this is not the case.

[RFPhotography]

First, I think that, yes, we all understand the technical definition.

Second, no educational institution will permit students to cite Wikipedia as a research source.

Third, fuck dictionary definitions and open your mind. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Third, fuck dictionary definitions and open your mind. 

To what exactly? Your point of view?

[jrsforums]

I think it's time for some folks to brush on their dictionary skills here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_manipulation

Photo manipulation (also called photoshopping or—before the rise of Photoshop software—airbrushing) is the application of image editing techniques to photographs in order to create an illusion or deception (in contrast to mere enhancement or correction), through analog or digital means

That's quite a clear definition and the Wiki article demonstrated what manipulation means and many examples.

Now what that has to do with what many of us do, is basically nothing at all! Pretty much closed case. Adjustment or even enhancement are not manipulation, how anyone could argue otherwise is beyond me. It is very obvious to most of us, so maybe you guys who don't understand can try to convey what's so hard to grasp. You seem to apply an inappropriate term for describing all forms of processing being it in camera, at a lab with a roll of film, or do normal editing in software/raw. They are not manipulation that is quite obvious.

So again I reject the term all photos are lies, this is not the case.

Barry, you say it is a clear definition...??

create an illusion or deception (in contrast to mere enhancement or correction)

Please explain where one ends and the other begins? 

If I chose Velvia, is that deception or illusion because that saturation is much higher than could have been possible in the actual scene?

[Isaac]

When you catch a thief...

... we have no difficulty saying which law we accuse them of breaking ;-)

The nub of the issue remains unanswered -- What rules do you think are being broken and who imposed those rules?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Please explain where one ends and the other begins?...

Ah, the sophists have joined the debate!

The eternal questions of the mankind:

How long is a piece of string?
What's pornography?
What's love? when does it begin and when it ends?

In all the above, the answer is simple: hard to define, but we all know it when we see it. It is even a part of a legal doctrine: "what most reasonable people would consider true."

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The nub of the issue remains unanswered -- What rules do you think are being broken and who imposed those rules?

Another sophist-in-residence?

[RFPhotography]

To what exactly? Your point of view?

Something more expansive than a definition that, as has been demonstrated; and I don't believe amounts to sophistry, is flawed in many ways.  I'd perhaps agree it amounts to Sophist thinking but not sophistry.  There is a difference.

[Isaac]

Another sophist-in-residence?

Just someone hopeful that that there can be more to this discussion, more thought instead of name-calling.

[Ken Richmond]

Another sophist-in-residence?

I'll join in as a Socratic.  BTW if you bring a bottle of Jameson 12 or Bush Black you can come to 1627 N 2nd. Street in Philly and join 16 or so 'togs and models on most Friday nights where this topic comes up rather frequently.

NGEO wants the raw with meta data.  Any manipulation disqualifies the submission. (Also true for use as evidence but requires Canon's verification firmware/software)

What is important to this discussion is, Intent.  Query.  Is the Photographer willing to accept NGEO requirement and publish it alongside his post processed work?  Why or why not?

Ken Richmond
  

[Isaac]

NGEO wants the raw with meta data.  Any manipulation disqualifies the submission.

Submission for what?

[Ken Richmond]

For publication.


Ken Richmond

[Ken Richmond]

"(Also true for use as evidence but requires Canon's verification firmware/software)"

Before a lawyer jumps me, I should add that this is so where the "truth" is contained in the photograph as a stand alone piece of evidence.  Otherwise, any witness to the events appearing in the photograph can testify as to what photograph portrays.  In the latter case the fact finder is relying upon the witness and not the photograph.

Ken Richmond

[jrsforums]

Ah, the sophists have joined the debate!

The eternal questions of the mankind:

How long is a piece of string?
What's pornography?
What's love? when does it begin and when it ends?

In all the above, the answer is simple: hard to define, but we all know it when we see it. It is even a part of a legal doctrine: "what most reasonable people would consider true."

Come on.  Can you honestly say that "create an illusion or deception (in contrast to mere enhancement or correction)" is a definition of anything.  I was purely commenting on the statement that was made, not to enter into this quite foolish debate.

A string can be measured.  You gave a legal attempt to define pornography....but many think "fine art" nudes as pornographic.  Love...is that the most personal of decisions?

[petermfiore]

The very lens that you chose will lie.

Peter

[Isaac]

The very lens that you chose will lie.

Thank you for providing me with an opportunity to agree with John Camp ;-)

The lens will not lie -- "It's the photographers who face the choice of how to behave."