8% final World Press Photo entries manipulated and disqualified

[RSL]

Thanks Alan. Interesting stuff. Apparently Life magazine didn't subscribe to these criteria.

[Alan Klein]

Life's out of business.

[RSL]

Maybe that's why.

[Alan Klein]

That was my point.

[Rob C]

Perhaps we might now hang up our swords and select a more appropriate instrument?

;-)

Rob C

[Alan Klein]

Sounds fine with me.   It's a new day! The sun is shining.  Great day to take pictures.

[RSL]

But to finish the argument: I'm not sure criteria this stiff make sense. I can certainly agree that no photojournalist should make adjustments that change the meaning of his subject, but let's face it, when you frame a picture you're already "manipulating" the target by cropping. As we all know, that alone can change the whole meaning of the scene. The thing that strikes me about the two Gene Smith photographs I mentioned is that what Gene did was make the photographs represent what he saw, not what the camera with its dumb brain saw. This, to him, was the meaning of what was in front of him, and I suggest that the camera is an imperfect enough tool that sometimes the kind of manipulation Gene did makes sense.

[Alan Klein]

If you take a picture of some guy that shows him firing the gun and the victim taking the bullet and then crop out the killer because he's a friend of yours, that of course is not the kind of cropping that photojounalism rules are allowing you to do.  That crop would be cause for getting fired. 

Come on.  We all know when we're telling the truth or not or when we're deceiving someone by altering our photographs.  Trying to finesse concepts and words aren't going to get it. 

[RSL]

Really? Was Gene Smith telling the truth in those photos?

[Alan Klein]

Really? Was Gene Smith telling the truth in those photos?

You answered your own question in your earlier post Reply #13 on: February 16, 2014, 09:27:41 AM, quote: "...The Schweitzer picture is an out and out fake, and the Tomoko picture carries what otherwise would be legitimate manipulation far beyond legitimacy..."

Why are you asking me if it was the truth?

[RSL]

Okay. I agree. But nobody seemed to be arguing the other side. Gene Smith did some wonderful work. My favorite was Country Doctor. But Schweitzer and Minamata were propaganda.

[Alan Klein]

Well let's say that Schweitzer was really a pervert who used underaged girls while he was in Africa.  So along comes a photographer who tries to show what a great guy he was by phoneying-up photos to make him look like a saint.  He adds tools to the photo that Schweitzer never used and who knows what untrue things in the pictures.  But really Schweitzer was just a dirty old man.   But Smith had a better chance to get his photos published by dressing them up and neglecting to tell the true story. 

The point is once you go down the slope of misrepresentation, all bets are off.  I don't know much about the other photo but how can you trust the story surrending that photo anymore knowing that Smith adulterated his photos to propogandize a point or to make his photos more news worthy so he can gather acclaim and money for his work?  That makes Smith a phoney too and one ligitimately can question his entire career's work.   What's real and what isn't?

[Jim Pascoe]

I cannot see there is really any grey area here.  Apart from cloning out dust spots etc, nothing else may be added or removed - no matter how trivial.  And the reason for that last part is that once you allow the photographer to use their discretion in what they can and cannot remove/add post capture, then anything will go.  Who will make the judgement?  Perhaps that small item in the corner does have some significant meaning that the photographer does not want to show.

Of course the photographer can be selective in their viewpoint amongst other controls at the time of capture, and that is a tool to tell the story from the angle they desire - and left to their own integrity.  But we all know how powerful the digital tools are at our fingertips,  and that ease of manipulation has to be tightly controlled.  I really think it is very clear and a bit like banned substances in sport, photographers have to know there is a zero tolerance.

Just because some of the 'greats' from the past set up pictures or faked them is no reason to allow it to continue with the greater ease now available. 

Jim

[RSL]

I'd agree with you Jim, except it's quite easy for a reporter with a camera to report just what he wants to report. Every time he frames a picture he's making judgments, and often those judgments are biased. Even the reporters choice of subjects very often is biased. So I can't get too bent out of shape about things like Gene Smith's Minamata. Did that plant actually cause Tomoko's problems? We'll probably never know for sure, but Tomoko in her bath made a heart-wrenching picture, and boosted the beliefs of people who agreed with Smith's and Life's political viewpoint. All you need to produce "unbiased" pictures that are nothing of the sort is the right environment and perhaps a long lens. You don't really need to "manipulate" those pictures in post-processing. I will concede Alan's point on Schweitzer and the stupid tools. Schweitzer was a long way from the saint Life made him out to be. But even without the photo manipulation the story was very much "manipulated."

[Jim Pascoe]

I'd agree with you Jim, except it's quite easy for a reporter with a camera to report just what he wants to report. Every time he frames a picture he's making judgments, and often those judgments are biased. Even the reporters choice of subjects very often is biased. So I can't get too bent out of shape about things like Gene Smith's Minamata. Did that plant actually cause Tomoko's problems? We'll probably never know for sure, but Tomoko in her bath made a heart-wrenching picture, and boosted the beliefs of people who agreed with Smith's and Life's political viewpoint. All you need to produce "unbiased" pictures that are nothing of the sort is the right environment and perhaps a long lens. You don't really need to "manipulate" those pictures in post-processing. I will concede Alan's point on Schweitzer and the stupid tools. Schweitzer was a long way from the saint Life made him out to be. But even without the photo manipulation the story was very much "manipulated."

Hi Russ

That is why I did say that the photographer can selectively tell whatever story he wants merely by viewpoint.  That is similar to a writer/journalist telling only one side of a story.  It's when they tell lies it becomes wrong.  The viewer or reader always has to bear in mind that the communication is selective (unless they are incredibly blind), but deliberately lying in a story, or manipulating a picture has to be unacceptable.  I agree it is an imperfect rule - but essential I think - otherwise where will the line be drawn?

Jim

[Rob C]

Hi Russ

That is why I did say that the photographer can selectively tell whatever story he wants merely by viewpoint.  That is similar to a writer/journalist telling only one side of a story.  It's when they tell lies it becomes wrong.  The viewer or reader always has to bear in mind that the communication is selective (unless they are incredibly blind), but deliberately lying in a story, or manipulating a picture has to be unacceptable.  I agree it is an imperfect rule - but essential I think - otherwise where will the line be drawn?

Jim

When the snapper's hooked?

Rob C

[RSL]

Hi Russ

That is why I did say that the photographer can selectively tell whatever story he wants merely by viewpoint.  That is similar to a writer/journalist telling only one side of a story.  It's when they tell lies it becomes wrong.  The viewer or reader always has to bear in mind that the communication is selective (unless they are incredibly blind), but deliberately lying in a story, or manipulating a picture has to be unacceptable.  I agree it is an imperfect rule - but essential I think - otherwise where will the line be drawn?

Jim

To a great extent I agree with you Jim, but I remember what went on with photo reportage in Vietnam. The pictures themselves weren't lies, but they were, well, let's be polite and say, "selective." Is that "unacceptable" too? There's no such thing as unbiased reporting, and a reporter doesn't have to depend on Photoshop to shade the truth. You talk about ". . .a writer/journalist telling only one side of a story." And then you say:  "It's when they tell lies it becomes wrong." Isn't telling only one side of a story telling lies?

[Jim Pascoe]

Not in the same way Russ - because there can be two sides to a story.  By only showing one side you are not necessarily lying - just being selective with what you show/tell.  But this is not about absolutes, just placing sensible limits on what is acceptable in news reporting pictures.  I think we all understand what we are talking about really.  The viewer always knows there is a backside to any picture - but blatantly changing it will just destroy any credibility photo-journalism has.  There has to be integrity, and as long as photographers are reminded from time to time that this is non-negotiable we may at least get a majority of images that at least are truthful in what they DO show.  Without any control pictures would be purely at the whim of imagination and they whole industry would become meaningless.

Regarding Vietnam - while the conflict ended when I was quite young, I have seen a lot of pictures and have some books such as those by Larry Burrows and Don McCullin etc.  Despite the fact a lot of imagery did have an 'angle' either pro war or anti-war, I believe it was one of the last wars where photographers were not censored too much on where they could go.  At least both sides of a story could be told.  Certainly recent conflicts are only reported by the West in relation to showing what a good job ours boys are doing and how sanitised the whole thing is.

Jim

[Rob C]

I have to say that I agree with Russ on the matter of telling one side of a story being nothing short of a fib, too.

Of course one doesn't expect any better, because were both (all?) side represented every time, then there would be total confusion at home and nobody would support any government's actions. They already have credibility problems at home on even relatively minor issues.

In no way minor for those citizens involved, but the recent flooding in parts of Britain is a glorious illustration of this very thing: politicians were criticised for not taking their butts down to the floods to see them, when that would have helped nothing and they obviously knew what was going on as well as (if not better than) did those on location, then when they did turn up they were criticised again for taking so long. As if their presence could stop or change a single thing! I couldn't help screaming Canute! at the screen, but that didn't help anyone either. Then Sky News: it is still the main topic on that channel - almost the sole one for days on end - and it's almost with reluctance that the stuff going down in Kiev gets aired at all. Media is a bitch: apart from the Beeb, it is totally finance oriented. Unfortunately, the Beeb is filled with socialists, so that doesn't help too much either. (It's a shame Oxbridge can't breed realists/rationalists too). Funny thing about the champagne socialists there: they all seem perfectly happy to get fired with golden hand-shakes to match and even surpass the splendour of their salaries...

But the States enjoyed the same nonsensical notion and clamour for physical, divine political presence at New Orleans and also the Gulf of Mexico...

So how should the media report? My view is drifting ever faster to this: they should just stay out completely. Let these warring countries fight themselves to a standstill and a clear winner emerge from the slaughter. Then there will be someone with whom to deal, negotiate and run a balanced existence between peace and annihilation. All we have now is a faked, fudged semi-peace that consists of nothing more than backing different sides in order to sell them arms in order that we may purchase fuels and chemicals we need from them. It's a crock of.

Rob C

[Jim Pascoe]

I have to say that I agree with Russ on the matter of telling one side of a story being nothing short of a fib, too.

Of course one doesn't expect any better, because were both (all?) side represented every time, then there would be total confusion at home and nobody would support any government's actions. They already have credibility problems at home on even relatively minor issues.

In no way minor for those citizens involved, but the recent flooding in parts of Britain is a glorious illustration of this very thing: politicians were criticised for not taking their butts down to the floods to see them, when that would have helped nothing and they obviously knew what was going on as well as (if not better than) did those on location, then when they did turn up they were criticised again for taking so long. As if their presence could stop or change a single thing! I couldn't help screaming Canute! at the screen, but that didn't help anyone either. Then Sky News: it is still the main topic on that channel - almost the sole one for days on end - and it's almost with reluctance that the stuff going down in Kiev gets aired at all. Media is a bitch: apart from the Beeb, it is totally finance oriented. Unfortunately, the Beeb is filled with socialists, so that doesn't help too much either. (It's a shame Oxbridge can't breed realists/rationalists too). Funny thing about the champagne socialists there: they all seem perfectly happy to get fired with golden hand-shakes to match and even surpass the splendour of their salaries...

But the States enjoyed the same nonsensical notion and clamour for physical, divine political presence at New Orleans and also the Gulf of Mexico...

So how should the media report? My view is drifting ever faster to this: they should just stay out completely. Let these warring countries fight themselves to a standstill and a clear winner emerge from the slaughter. Then there will be someone with whom to deal, negotiate and run a balanced existence between peace and annihilation. All we have now is a faked, fudged semi-peace that consists of nothing more than backing different sides in order to sell them arms in order that we may purchase fuels and chemicals we need from them. It's a crock of.

Rob C

I'm not too sure Rob what all this has to do with whether photo-journos should be allowed to digitally fake their pictures or not.  But you may be outdated about the BBC political bids.  They have just been censured over being too right-leaning in fact.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/opinion/extract-how-the-bbc-leans-to-the-right-9129608.html

Jim