4 ms·

Photojournalism is a fraudulent concept from the beginning. There is no platonically neutral way to present a scene, you are inherently making editorial decisi

by paulmd 10y ago

Photojournalism is a fraudulent concept from the beginning. There is no platonically neutral way to present a scene, you are inherently making editorial decisions even before you snap the picture, with your choice of positioning/framing/focal length. Which of these is the "neutral" way to portray this shot? And says who? http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/23/23/2CB1092D00000578-3246791-image-a-2_1443046088866.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/23/23/2CB1092D0000057... http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/24/23/2CB066F800000578-3248214-image-a-2_1443132727378.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/24/23/2CB066F80000057... From there it's all a matter of degrees. Pulling a distracting highlight, desaturating a distracting visual element, cloning something out, it's all on a spectrum. But you could do the same manipulations by changing your positioning and perspective a little bit when you take the shot. Even stuff like white balance and color correction is frowned on, which is incredibly stupid when using a filter or changing your film stock would have the exact same effect. And the fact that digital is inherently a processed format in itself - you're not seeing color, you're seeing black and white run through a Bayer filter and interpreted back to a color image. Basically, photojournalism is a bunch of people jerking themselves off and handing out awards for getting "the perfect shot" in-camera.

vr46 10y ago
This is wrong in about fifty different ways right from the first paragraph. Photojournalism has impartiality at its core, not 'neutrality'. Everyone has biases, nobody can be neutral. But you can certainly be impartial. Framing, composition are also aesthetic decisions, not just political ones, and those decisions are made both by the photographer at shooting time and picture editors at publishing time. The point is to draw the reader into the story. Making corrections and alterations to digital images is not 'stupid', it is a development that has occurred over time in response to accusations and revelations of genuine manipulations and fakery. With film, large-scale changes were very hard and almost impossible to do with the original negative or positive, so elaborate printing techniques were considered to be almost entirely aesthetic and artistic. With the advent and ascent of digital darkrooms, manipulation and alteration is easier and harder to catch, therefore the appropriate approach is to respect the original pixels and not change any: the integrity of the picture can never be called into question. This is a potted summary and there are certainly more nuances, complexities and subtleties than I can relate here, I also have a Masters in Photojournalism and do not appreciate the abusive tone bolted onto the previous comment.
- vwcx 10y ago
  Seconded.
- paulmd 10y ago
  > Photojournalism has impartiality at its core, not 'neutrality'. These words are literally synonyms. > Framing, composition are also aesthetic decisions, not just political ones, and those decisions are made both by the photographer at shooting time and picture editors at publishing time. The point is to draw the reader into the story. Certainly, but the need for drama doesn't detract from the editorial aspects inherent to those artistic decisions. > With film, large-scale changes were very hard and almost impossible to do with the original negative or positive, so elaborate printing techniques were considered to be almost entirely aesthetic and artistic. No, for someone with a degree in photojournalism you're highly misinformed. Basic darkroom work is trivial to accomplish (it's literally taught in Photo 101 courses) and was routine during the entirety of the film era. Up to and including outright manipulation of photographs in many cases. Famously, consider some of the "unpersons" removed from images of Stalin - although I certainly agree this is the type of thing that should be avoided in works of a documentary nature. https://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/ca4cecf5-8daf-49fa-93dd-02cd2958d2af/906968fc0d73a207e520dfcc574df324.jpeg https://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/ca4cecf5-8daf-49fa-93... > With the advent and ascent of digital darkrooms, manipulation and alteration is easier and harder to catch, therefore the appropriate approach is to respect the original pixels and not change any: the integrity of the picture can never be called into question. I don't see how that substantially addresses the problem. Retouching is not inherently unethical, and individuals who engage in unethical behavior aren't going to be slowed down by your code of conduct. To wit: did your code of ethics keep the guy from being removed from that image of Stalin? > I also have a Masters in Photojournalism and do not appreciate the abusive tone bolted onto the previous comment. Please don't descend to the level of tone argument. It's a logical fallacy and not constructive at all.
cr1895 10y ago
Documenting atrocities so that those who committed them may be brought to justice...yeah, that meshes well with your final thought. Maybe this will change your perspective: https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/photography-in-the-docket-as-evidence/?_r=0 https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/photography-in-the...

by paulmd 10y ago

vr46 10y ago

This is wrong in about fifty different ways right from the first paragraph. Photojournalism has impartiality at its core, not 'neutrality'. Everyone has biases, nobody can be neutral. But you can certainly be impartial. Framing, composition are also aesthetic decisions, not just political ones, and those decisions are made both by the photographer at shooting time and picture editors at publishing time. The point is to draw the reader into the story. Making corrections and alterations to digital images is not 'stupid', it is a development that has occurred over time in response to accusations and revelations of genuine manipulations and fakery. With film, large-scale changes were very hard and almost impossible to do with the original negative or positive, so elaborate printing techniques were considered to be almost entirely aesthetic and artistic. With the advent and ascent of digital darkrooms, manipulation and alteration is easier and harder to catch, therefore the appropriate approach is to respect the original pixels and not change any: the integrity of the picture can never be called into question. This is a potted summary and there are certainly more nuances, complexities and subtleties than I can relate here, I also have a Masters in Photojournalism and do not appreciate the abusive tone bolted onto the previous comment.

vwcx 10y ago
Seconded.
paulmd 10y ago
> Photojournalism has impartiality at its core, not 'neutrality'. These words are literally synonyms. > Framing, composition are also aesthetic decisions, not just political ones, and those decisions are made both by the photographer at shooting time and picture editors at publishing time. The point is to draw the reader into the story. Certainly, but the need for drama doesn't detract from the editorial aspects inherent to those artistic decisions. > With film, large-scale changes were very hard and almost impossible to do with the original negative or positive, so elaborate printing techniques were considered to be almost entirely aesthetic and artistic. No, for someone with a degree in photojournalism you're highly misinformed. Basic darkroom work is trivial to accomplish (it's literally taught in Photo 101 courses) and was routine during the entirety of the film era. Up to and including outright manipulation of photographs in many cases. Famously, consider some of the "unpersons" removed from images of Stalin - although I certainly agree this is the type of thing that should be avoided in works of a documentary nature. https://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/ca4cecf5-8daf-49fa-93dd-02cd2958d2af/906968fc0d73a207e520dfcc574df324.jpeg https://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/ca4cecf5-8daf-49fa-93... > With the advent and ascent of digital darkrooms, manipulation and alteration is easier and harder to catch, therefore the appropriate approach is to respect the original pixels and not change any: the integrity of the picture can never be called into question. I don't see how that substantially addresses the problem. Retouching is not inherently unethical, and individuals who engage in unethical behavior aren't going to be slowed down by your code of conduct. To wit: did your code of ethics keep the guy from being removed from that image of Stalin? > I also have a Masters in Photojournalism and do not appreciate the abusive tone bolted onto the previous comment. Please don't descend to the level of tone argument. It's a logical fallacy and not constructive at all.

cr1895 10y ago

Documenting atrocities so that those who committed them may be brought to justice...yeah, that meshes well with your final thought. Maybe this will change your perspective: https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/photography-in-the-docket-as-evidence/?_r=0 https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/photography-in-the...