Detrich resigns, alteration in photojournalism wrong?

[night86mare]

Check out an article on the issue if you don't know what I'm talking about

I mean, since this is supposed to be a forum on photography.

I don't really understand though - what's wrong with alternation of newspaper photographs if you have taken, especially when it doesn't harm anyone?

It's like some small white lie thing, and I know some people here frown upon removing distracting elements, etc, but I do do it now and then when I know for sure that there was no way in hell that I could have gotten the shot without those elements; note that this is in no way connected to any false impressions that I am a photojournalist and thus the same rules apply to me, just attempting to create a general discussion here.

I do get the point from the media world - that modifying one's photographs gives the false impression of the situation.

BUT - does it really? I guess that is food for thought.

 

[dr34mc4st3r]

its best to stay away from grey areas. once u allow such things, ppl tend to push their limits

 

[hongsien]

It is about credibility........if one can alter photographs (thats supposed to show reality as kind of evidence), then what do we have to believe now? Words can be twisted but photographs until recently difficult, but now this is also easy to achieve.

I remember an old pic of Mussolini that was doctered to have another person inside deleted.

In news it is about crediblity.......that's what is at stake here (pretty obvious I find).

Hong sien

 

[Deadpoet]

He deserves it.

It's a very black and white thing. Photojournalish, you do not alter the image.

The Toledo Blade did the right thing. Beside, it's not a one time error.

 

[Parka]

Altering the photo is no different from telling lies.
Those slimming adverts are spewing lies everyday.

Also reminded me of a news photo. It was shot in Iraq and the photographer airbrushed in more smoke to the photo. I think he was either sacked or resigned.

 

[night86mare]

Ah, but you see -

Newspaper article writers/columnists are given freedom to put their point of view. That's fine.

So long as the reality within the photo is not too altered, i.e. the gist is not changed, I say that the punishment this time is really too harsh. We all have skeletons in our closet.

I don't know about you, but for the sake of being alternative, since all the responses are towards one-side, and this discussion will just turn into some mud-slinging contest, which wasn't my purpose in the first place for posting this up:

Are minor amendments not really simply a means of the photographer's form of self-expression? Bearing in mind that the photograph is still "real" in the sense that the ongoing event or moment that it seeks to capture - it is still there, the facts are still presented. Just one silly baseball bat gone, one silly shoe gone, is it that wrong?

Besides that, keep in mind that articles are biased in one way or another, I have seen write-ups where people are SELECTIVELY quoted, and sometimes even paraphrased out of context.

Why are there such double standards? If the reaction to this is so severe, then I say that it is not very.. Objective! One should be held as accountable for his words and inaccurate quoting/inaccurate presentation of facts as much as he should be held accountable for altering photographs!

 

[night86mare]

Personally, I think dreamcaster has possibly gotten the main gist, how much is too much?

First you will start with a shoe, then you will continue with an ugly person. In the end you find that the setting and lighting is so off, you will just move them into a beautiful sunset to make your picture more beautiful. :bsmilie:

But with proper regulation, all this can be controlled! Do photojournalists have absolutely no room for creativity AFTER they have pressed the shutter?

 

[Parka]

Personally, I think dreamcaster has possibly gotten the main gist, how much is too much?

First you will start with a shoe, then you will continue with an ugly person. In the end you find that the setting and lighting is so off, you will just move them into a beautiful sunset to make your picture more beautiful. :bsmilie:

But with proper regulation, all this can be controlled! Do photojournalists have absolutely no room for creativity AFTER they have pressed the shutter?

Depends on how you frame the photo in the first place. That's why most of the powerful photos are the ones that set viewers thinking.

 

[Parka]

Representation of the story via photo or any other means is tricky. For every photo that's taken, there are million of other moments that were missed.

 

[hongsien]

Yes, where do you put the borderline between what is allowable and what is not?
One starts with removing some stones, then it may evolve into removing persons, what stops him/her from doing that?

Perhaps photojournalists should use wire transfers to send their images directly to their bureaus, so that they don't have the means themselves to alter any part of the image.

Because the newspapers live on credibility, this is one thing that can't be disturbed.

Anyway, by pointing your camera to one point, a journalist may 'delete' other important images, by just not taking photographs of it.........so even without image editing, there can still be a 'selective' kind of journalism to show only what you want to show to support a certain opinion of the journalist. But this is the best what we have in place, and we must hope that there will be anough other photographers who can show us the other side of a story.......


HS