I've been forced to think about my job in a new way since the Reuters image manipulation hullaballo broke. (I work for O'Reilly Media as a book editor in the Digital Media space.) The bulk of my work day is spent helping authors create books on how to use Photoshop and other digital imaging technology to express their creative vision (and do it with much more finesse than clumsy, blatant over-use of the Clone Stamp tool.) Helping readers "unleash their creativity" is fun, and I admit that I rarely think about the intent to which people might be using or misusing the tools and techniques our books teach.
One of my authors would definitely call me on that. Digital imaging pioneer Stephen Johnson has always been very clear about his own rules for the use of image manipulation in post production: unless the piece is understood to be "constructed imaginings," nothing should be added or taken from the image that wasn't in the original scene. And for Steve, this applies not only to photojournalists (whom some would hold to a higher standard of "truth") but to his own fine art nature photography as well. Steve devotes an entire chapter to these considerations of "Photography and Truth" in his new book, Stephen Johnson on Digital Photography.
In the book, Steve considers the history of photo-manipulation, which is of course as old as photography itself. He even recounts his own personal story of finding a paper cup in the foreground of this beautiful image he used for the cover of his book about California's Great Central Valley. (The cup is in the lower right-hand corner; you can see it on the actual book if you know what you're looking for.) As it was coming off the press, his publisher remarked about how easy it would have been for him to have "gotten rid of" the cup. But where is the line? Steve notes that the cows, fences, and even the grasses in the shot weren't "native" to that particular landscape either. Should they have been Photoshopped out as well?
Which makes it obvious, in some way all photography is a form of image editing. Photographers choose when, what, and how to shoot their subjects. Even Steve Johnson points out that he might have climbed the fence and taken that cup out of his shot if he'd actually seen it at the time. But once it was there, it was there. Framing, cropping, making exposure decisions, and every other step in the photographic workflow involves editorial choice, and always has.
The digital era just brings new questions of where the boundaries are. Reuters has now posted specific information on which Photoshop tools are appropriate for general use by photojournalists. Adobe has been working to develop retouching-detection tools, so that photo editors will be able to spot photo-manipulation before it causes a ruckus. Ultimately though, photographers are people, and people will always have the choice to use their powers (and software) for good or evil. We'll all need to be aware of the use and misuse of digital technology in our everyday experiences. It's nothing new.
To read more on "Photography and Ethics - Imaging Ethics in the Digital Age" and a host of other topics on the creation of digital art, check out Steve's book Stephen Johnson on Digital Photography from O'Reilly Media (2006).
Categories
Photography
Comments (4)
Read More Entries by Colleen Wheeler.
Rick......
I find it ironic that you speak of living a life of value and ethics.
That's almost funny coming from you !
Scott: I'm not going to deal with your statement whether Steve's position about digital ethics is pointless or not. However, I would remind you of what everyone who views their image through the viewfinder has to ask himself during the workflow process - are the changes I can make ethical? Yes, we can make changes and Photoshop is clearly the most wonderful image manipulation product on the planet today. The question you now have to ask yourself is: "Is it ethical?" The image we have to maintain as photographers, photojournalists and keepers of the flame is that of our own personal integrity. It's as simple as when we have 13 items in our shopping cart and the sign states "12 items or less". If you have to ask yourself if you cheat just a little, whom are you cheating? Yourself or your own personal integrity. We have so many temptations that we have to deal with every day. Personal integrity tells us what sort of person you are. It also reflects on how you deal with the little things of life. Live a life that has meaning. Live a life of value. I have found that the terms "ethics" and "values" are not interchangeable. We don't leave this world with the money or accolades that we may receive, however the values that we create and hold to endure beyond our life here.
Hey, Scott.
I think many people would agree with you. I don't want to speak for Steve (and I'll encourage him to speak for himself), but my sense is that for him, his photographic work is intrinsically tied to his environmental concerns. The image was for a book on the relationship between a geographical area and the humans who inhabit it. To remove one particular sign of habitation might have felt like a slippery slope.
Steve writes in the book, "I simply feel on more solid ground with the interpretation being in how I make the photograph rather than what I impose on it later."
I've read arguments that the photographer fired from the Charlotte Observer for tweaking the colors of his sunrise might have been spared if his camera had a "sunrise" setting that captured the colors on board the camera the way he says he saw them in the first place. But it makes me wonder, is "in-camera" adjusting different than "on-screen" editing?
And then there are portraits... (But I've noticed if you keep your sunglasses on you don't have to worry about retouching the laugh lines.)
I have seen Mr. Johnson give his digital ethics speech several times. I have no doubt he really believes what he's saying. But frankly, unless you are indeed a journalist, I think Mr. Johnson's position is pointless. If one photographs a waterfall using a slow shutter speed and causes the water to blur, that's not something we'd see with our own two eyes in reality. Yet that would be okay under Mr. Johnson's standards.
Art has never been about reality. For fine art, any sort of manipulation should be okay in my book. It's about the picture, not the process for most people. Once again, in the Reuters case, there's good cause for concern. Journalists are representing their photos as truth. Artists have no such obligation unless they want it.
And oh by the way, I'd remove the cup in a heartbeat and never think about it again.