| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/01/2006 11:37:40 AM · #1 |
I was hanging out at Sports Shooters browsing some of the older video files and I came across an interesting topic.
The video I was watching dealt with the Sports Shooter awards of 2004 and the final video clip was a commentary on the trend they saw in heavy photoshop manipulations. I work in the advertising and marketing industry and this topic comes up a lot when talking to some of the contributing photographers in our business who also shoot sports or other editorial stuff.
The jist of the comment is the feeling that a lot of up and coming photographers are going into photoshop and laying a heavy hand on the photos with color manipulation, going beyond the normal cropping and cloning and cleaning up to turn these photos into hyper-reality and distort the moment. A common practice in advertising that has been creeping into photojournalism.
The link is here... Sports Shooter Comments and it is worth a view I think with some other interesting commentary and review.
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 11:42:08. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 11:44:19 AM · #2 |
Just my 2 cents worth here.
For Advertising I have no problem with manipulation, ad's aren't expected to be real and it is a very common practice.
If it is for editorial use only ccropping, sharpening and some light color correction is all we are allowed to use, anything else and you will not be used again. And yes I have had an editor request exif data and the original raw photo. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 11:53:31 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by rlinn3:
Just my 2 cents worth here.
For Advertising I have no problem with manipulation, ad's aren't expected to be real and it is a very common practice.
If it is for editorial use only cropping, sharpening and some light color correction is all we are allowed to use, anything else and you will not be used again. And yes I have had an editor request exif data and the original raw photo. |
To build on this. Editors at respected publications don't just see this as a crutch for poor photography, they see heavy photoshopping as a potential breach of editorial trust.
Don't get me wrong. Photojournalsits are expected to get great color and contrast along with great story lines. This is what makes photojournalism harder than other forms of photography...getting incredible photos out of the camera, exposed correctly and basically ready for publication. I shoot for a Virginia sports magazine and a couple newspapers and they basically want the photos straight from the camera. In the newspapers case, the photos are emailed from the sports venue right off the memory card within 5-10 minutes of a shot.
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 11:55:12. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 12:01:06 PM · #4 |
I don't have any problem with it, unless the doctored photos are being used to somehow tell a lie or shade the truth about an important aspect of a story. IOW, if it's only being done to make the photo more visually appealing, than who cares. People will either like it and it will continue, or they'll dislike it and it'll go away.
BTW, I'm not a pro. This is just my $0.02 worth.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 12:04:24 PM · #5 |
for sports shooting it makes sense, what the heck could you really do to a sports photo that would be wrong besides obviously removal or addition of objects from a shot? viewers want to feel like they were there watching the game, not looking at an artistic interpretation. what about photojournalistic photos outside the realm of sports?
i think it's a good idea for any editor to require a raw file with exif info with each shot so he or she can cover all the bases. but different types of photojournalistic photos allow for different levels of artistic interpretation, right? One of the coolest movies about photography i've seen is War Photographer. He worked in film but used dodging and burning a lot.
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 12:09:09.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 12:22:05 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Mick:
I don't have any problem with it, unless the doctored photos are being used to somehow tell a lie or shade the truth about an important aspect of a story. IOW, if it's only being done to make the photo more visually appealing, than who cares. People will either like it and it will continue, or they'll dislike it and it'll go away.
BTW, I'm not a pro. This is just my $0.02 worth. |
I think the point of the video comments and what I am seeing is that we are seeing a lot of the manipulations we take for granted in advertising and art photography creep over into photojournalism.
I get ESPN the magazine and I see more manipulated and studio style stuff making it as the primary style. I don't have a problem with it if its a psuedo news piece that is more lifestyle than reporting. Certainly ESPN the magazine has a different approach than Sports Illustrated. I like both.
I see more people not understanding where the line is between art and good photojournalism style and skill, relying on special effects and heavy manipulation to make the photo.
Take a look at this photo....
Great lighting and an incredible sense of the moment are the keys to this fantastic photo that is a studio shot but with very little manipulation. I hope people are still willing to work a venue, see the shot, wait for the light and capture the moment today without totally relying on photoshop to "Snap It Up".
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 12:25:19. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 12:31:49 PM · #7 |
OK... take for instance this:
Most good sports photos of any sort of ball game (football, soccer, volleyball, basketball, etc.) usually includes a player or players interacting with the ball that is in play.
Say for instance, I have a decent capture, but I was just a second fast and the ball was not in the frame.
Now, I got into photoshop with this good capture and a second photo that does include the ball. I copy and paste the ball into the photo and then run it in the Sports section of my local newspaper.
The photo doesn't really tell a lie, BUT it's not exactly telling the truth either. Ofcourse, it's ONLY a sports photo, not HARD NEWS. However, IMO, I've breached the trust of the reader, I've presented something as fact with my little white lie.
Color manipulation is a bit of a different story. And here's why: color manipulation has happened since the beginning of photography. B&W film or reproduction manipulates color, also color can be manipulated simply by choosing the film that will produce the color effects you want.
But, if I go to the extremes of making the red jerseys blue, that might be a bit too far.
Photography is an art of manipulation. It's that simple. Nothing we present with a photo is indeed reality. Cropping, DoF, shutter speed, etc. all augment reality. The critical point is WHEN to stop with the manipulation. I can manipulate a scene many ways in-camera. I can also do quite a LOT of manipulation in a darkroom. The question for the journalist is not HOW the manipulation was done, but at what point the manipulation becomes a lie, even if the manipulation was done in-camera.
The reason we now hear so much about manipulation is that:
1. It's much easier to do now thanks to Photoshop.
2. The general public knows that it can be done with photoshop. Whereas in the past the general public had little knowledge of the techniques available to photographers to "tell thier lies".
3. Because it's being done. And it's being done by both respected and not so respected publications. TV and Internet have put fierce demand on print publications to compete for viewers. To do that, they have to really stun the population. So, many are turning to augmentation of photos (and facts) to attract readers.
Photo manipulation is not a new thing to journailsm. It was done quite often in US Civil War times. There is one memorable photo of dead soldiers where the bodies were moved and posed to suit the photog's needs. IMO, that a bit more of a falacy than simply cloning out a zit on President Bush's forehead.
I'm just waiting for TV news to start using CGI to add to scenes :-)
Sorry for the longish post, but I've been hearing these same arguments for over 15 years. This stuff was beat into my head in college (as a Journalism major).
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 12:38:20 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
OK... take for instance this:
Most good sports photos of any sort of ball game (football, soccer, volleyball, basketball, etc.) usually includes a player or players interacting with the ball that is in play.
Say for instance, I have a decent capture, but I was just a second fast and the ball was not in the frame.
Now, I got into photoshop with this good capture and a second photo that does include the ball. I copy and paste the ball into the photo and then run it in the Sports section of my local newspaper.
The photo doesn't really tell a lie, BUT it's not exactly telling the truth either. Ofcourse, it's ONLY a sports photo, not HARD NEWS. However, IMO, I've breached the trust of the reader, I've presented something as fact with my little white lie.
Color manipulation is a bit of a different story. And here's why: color manipulation has happened since the beginning of photography. B&W film or reproduction manipulates color, also color can be manipulated simply by choosing the film that will produce the color effects you want.
But, if I go to the extremes of making the red jerseys blue, that might be a bit too far.
Photography is an art of manipulation. It's that simple. Nothing we present with a photo is indeed reality. Cropping, DoF, shutter speed, etc. all augment reality. The critical point is WHEN to stop with the manipulation. I can manipulate a scene many ways in-camera. I can also do quite a LOT of manipulation in a darkroom. The question for the journalist is not HOW the manipulation was done, but at what point the manipulation becomes a lie, even if the manipulation was done in-camera.
The reason we now hear so much about manipulation is that:
1. It's much easier to do now thanks to Photoshop.
2. The general public knows that it can be done with photoshop. Whereas in the past the general public had little knowledge of the techniques available to photographers to "tell thier lies".
3. Because it's being done. And it's being done by both respected and not so respected publications. TV and Internet have put fierce demand on print publications to compete for viewers. To do that, they have to really stun the population. So, many are turning to augmentation of photos (and facts) to attract readers.
Photo manipulation is not a new thing to journailsm. It was done quite often in US Civil War times. There is one memorable photo of dead soldiers where the bodies were moved and posed to suit the photog's needs. IMO, that a bit more of a falacy than simply cloning out a zit on President Bush's forehead.
I'm just waiting for TV news to start using CGI to add to scenes :-)
Sorry for the longish post, but I've been hearing these same arguments for over 15 years. This stuff was beat into my head in college (as a Journalism major). |
There was a case with photos from the train bombing in Spain where severed body parts and other grsly detaills were removed from certain photos when they were published in the US. To my knowledge, the editing was not done when they were published in Europe.
I don't think editing such things out is acceptable. It's certainly not what I expect from a major news magazine. Leave the image out altogether or place a warning on it, OK. Alter the scene, not OK. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 12:44:03 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
There was a case with photos from the train bombing in Spain where severed body parts and other grsly detaills were removed from certain photos when they were published in the US. To my knowledge, the editing was not done when they were published in Europe.
I don't think editing such things out is acceptable. It's certainly not what I expect from a major news magazine. Leave the image out altogether or place a warning on it, OK. Alter the scene, not OK. |
Fair enough (and I agree to a point). But, that was done because US readerships are queezy. It was a sound business decison by the papers (actually I think it was AP or Reuters, can't remember). Not one I particularly agree with, but it does makes business sense.
My next question is: WHAT IF, the photographer had the body parts removed from the scene before he took the initial photo? Same effect, different method.
Like I said, this is nothing new to the world of PJ. It's just that now it's easier.
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 12:48:48.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:03:18 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
There was a case with photos from the train bombing in Spain where severed body parts and other grsly detaills were removed from certain photos when they were published in the US. To my knowledge, the editing was not done when they were published in Europe.
I don't think editing such things out is acceptable. It's certainly not what I expect from a major news magazine. Leave the image out altogether or place a warning on it, OK. Alter the scene, not OK. |
Fair enough (and I agree to a point). But, that was done because US readerships are queezy. It was a sound business decison by the papers (actually I think it was AP or Reuters, can't remember).
My next question is: WHAT IF, the photographer had the body parts removed from the scene before he took the initial photo? Same effect, different method.
Like I said, this is nothing new to the world of PJ. It's just that now it's easier. |
The examples of civil war photogs moving bodies around is an antiquated example from the days of before journalism was bound by any ethical standards to report the truth. It was acceptable to report opinion and even outright lies as fact in order to generate sensationalism that would in turn, sell papers.
Now, instead of using sensationalism to sell papers and drive social reform, the editors have now taken it upon themselves to protect their tender readers from the harsh realities of the truth. That's a great disservice to the readers and, in the end, to all journalists.
To present something as the truth, when it's not, is lying by omission. If they didn't want to show an image as it was, they should have added a disclaimer saying, in effect: "This photograph is only a partial truth, certain details have been edited out to spare our tender readership the trauma." |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:03:30 PM · #11 |
Photojournalists have anyway been manipulating their pictures without ANY post-processing since the beginning of photography, as has been pointed out. Rearranging scenes to suit is an obvious example, but even more often a photographer will adjust his POV or his framing of the scene to alter the context of an image to hammer home a particular point.
The simple truth of the matter is the camera lies. Always has, always will. Not every photo of course, and not all the time, but anyone who blindly believes that an image "straight from the camera" is ipso facto a true or faithful image is deluding him/herself.
Imagine a shot of a policeman, face distorted in rage, screaming over a handcuffed prisoner cringing on the ground. Police brutality, right? But what the image doesn't show is that the policeman is screaming at someone else who is attacking the prisoner, not visible in the frame, and the prisoner is cringing away from that non-police attack.
Context is everything, and the photographer pushing a particular agenda had better be skilled at manipulating context to make his publication's point. Expect to see completely different images of a massive "pro life" rally in our nation's capitol published by the liberal and the conservative media...
R. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:08:18 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Photojournalists have anyway been manipulating their pictures without ANY post-processing since the beginning of photography, as has been pointed out. Rearranging scenes to suit is an obvious example, but even more often a photographer will adjust his POV or his framing of the scene to alter the context of an image to hammer home a particular point.
The simple truth of the matter is the camera lies. Always has, always will. Not every photo of course, and not all the time, but anyone who blindly believes that an image "straight from the camera" is ipso facto a true or faithful image is deluding him/herself.
Imagine a shot of a policeman, face distorted in rage, screaming over a handcuffed prisoner cringing on the ground. Police brutality, right? But what the image doesn't show is that the policeman is screaming at someone else who is attacking the prisoner, not visible in the frame, and the prisoner is cringing away from that non-police attack.
Context is everything, and the photographer pushing a particular agenda had better be skilled at manipulating context to make his publication's point. Expect to see completely different images of a massive "pro life" rally in our nation's capitol published by the liberal and the conservative media...
R. |
Yes, but there's a line between simply using the camera as a tool to frame scenes recording events and actively re-arranging the scene to make a point, whether that happens by re-arranging bodies on a battlefield or removing severed limbs in the computer later. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:09:36 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Photojournalists have anyway been manipulating their pictures without ANY post-processing since the beginning of photography, as has been pointed out. Rearranging scenes to suit is an obvious example, but even more often a photographer will adjust his POV or his framing of the scene to alter the context of an image to hammer home a particular point.
The simple truth of the matter is the camera lies. Always has, always will. Not every photo of course, and not all the time, but anyone who blindly believes that an image "straight from the camera" is ipso facto a true or faithful image is deluding him/herself.
Imagine a shot of a policeman, face distorted in rage, screaming over a handcuffed prisoner cringing on the ground. Police brutality, right? But what the image doesn't show is that the policeman is screaming at someone else who is attacking the prisoner, not visible in the frame, and the prisoner is cringing away from that non-police attack.
Context is everything, and the photographer pushing a particular agenda had better be skilled at manipulating context to make his publication's point. Expect to see completely different images of a massive "pro life" rally in our nation's capitol published by the liberal and the conservative media...
R. |
Yes, but there's a line between simply using the camera as a tool to frame scenes recording events and actively re-arranging the scene to make a point, whether that happens by re-arranging bodies on a battlefield or removing severed limbs in the computer later. |
I don't see the difference manipulation is manipulation. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:14:28 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yes, but there's a line between simply using the camera as a tool to frame scenes recording events and actively re-arranging the scene to make a point, whether that happens by re-arranging bodies on a battlefield or removing severed limbs in the computer later. |
I don't see the difference manipulation is manipulation. |
Exactly, manipulation of FACTS is manipulation of facts no matter what the method of manipulation is.
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 13:15:20.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:23:53 PM · #15 |
I watched the video clip and the gist of it that I got was that the editors, if they are up to standard, would not really allow this sort of action. As one person said, he saw someone go from second place to not winning any awards because of this type of manipulation. And as Bear has said you must be aware of your ethics when shooting something of a editorial nature so as not to make the viewer see something that is not really there. As for art photography I see nothing wrong with this approach. When shooting in a studio you can manipulate the light just as you would like it to bring out contrast or color or detail, but when you are shooting outdoor photography the light may not always work with you in the way you want. So if you boost up the color a bit or dodge an area to give it the appearance of more light then I think this is fine.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:25:23 PM · #16 |
I'm gonna post this, because I'm currently working on this series and I think I can use it to prove a point.
April is a big girl, a self-proclaimed BBW (big beautiful woman). There is a little PP on this image, some cloning of blemishes on her skin, some soft focus.
However, my choice of PoV on this image influences the total outcome of the shot more than the PP in this image.
Comapre it to a more traditional PoV.
Making her face more prominent in the image reduces her size. I'm using the camerea to lie.
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 13:28:13.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:32:57 PM · #17 |
The whole ethics debate comes down to an exchange of trust between the photographer and viewer. If you are claiming that this is 'truth' in the image, then chopping/ changing, dodging and burning with the 'hand of god' to remove elements etc, are all just ways of lying to your audience and breaking that pact.
For areas of photography that tend to have that expectation or burden of truth - its an issue. Any manipulation is suspect, particularly if it is done to change the message or emotional content of an image. Journalism and nature photography are the two areas where this notion of truth seem mostly heavily expected.
Advertising is at the other end of that scale. About as far from the truth as you can get - but mostly people expect advertising photography to be completely fake. The only worse style in terms of telling the truth is probably food photography. There are perhaps even more stylists involved in those shoots than most fashion work.
But even in those areas were people believe there is truth, the eye of the photographer was there first, cropping and changing the perspective. Using lens choices and camera position to distort the reality to the story they wanted to tell. Shooting the grand, beautiful landscape but just missing the coke can. Shooting the starving child but ignoring the rescue camp behind them. Finding the one in the many that tells whatever story they want to tell.
That's then further distorted by the fact that an editor picks one of thousands of images to further show bias.
But somehow people still think photography represents some sort of 'truth'. Bizarre notion really.
The camera lens points both ways.
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 13:33:12. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:35:23 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Making her face more prominent in the image reduces her size. I'm using the camerea to lie. |
You certainly are. In the second shot she looks borderline obese, the body completely dominates the head, which looks very small by comparison. That's probably completely accurate. The first shot is much more pleasing proportionally, while in no way hiding the fact that she's a BBW.
Excellent example of POV doing the "maniplation".
R. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:26:44 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Photojournalists have anyway been manipulating their pictures without ANY post-processing since the beginning of photography, as has been pointed out. Rearranging scenes to suit is an obvious example, but even more often a photographer will adjust his POV or his framing of the scene to alter the context of an image to hammer home a particular point.
The simple truth of the matter is the camera lies. Always has, always will. Not every photo of course, and not all the time, but anyone who blindly believes that an image "straight from the camera" is ipso facto a true or faithful image is deluding him/herself.
Imagine a shot of a policeman, face distorted in rage, screaming over a handcuffed prisoner cringing on the ground. Police brutality, right? But what the image doesn't show is that the policeman is screaming at someone else who is attacking the prisoner, not visible in the frame, and the prisoner is cringing away from that non-police attack.
Context is everything, and the photographer pushing a particular agenda had better be skilled at manipulating context to make his publication's point. Expect to see completely different images of a massive "pro life" rally in our nation's capitol published by the liberal and the conservative media...
R. |
Yes, but there's a line between simply using the camera as a tool to frame scenes recording events and actively re-arranging the scene to make a point, whether that happens by re-arranging bodies on a battlefield or removing severed limbs in the computer later. |
I don't see the difference manipulation is manipulation. |
One is passive, being there to record and document. The other is taking a active role in changeing what was recorded to suit some ulterior motive or bias. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:27:59 PM · #20 |
It still doesn't fly with me. Manipulation, whether active or passive, is manipulation.
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 14:28:12. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:43:31 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
One is passive, being there to record and document. The other is taking a active role in changeing what was recorded to suit some ulterior motive or bias. |
I disagree. Either can be used to actively "suit some ulterior motive or bias". If I crop the thrid party in Bear's scenario in-camera, I am actively adding bias to the photo.
If I take a photo of a firefighter carry a child out of a burning house. My PoV and focal length may make the scene appear as the house is completely engulfed in flame, when in reality, it may only be a small portion of the house.
Ofcourse as a photographer, I want the most dramatic scene. 99% of PJs would choose the PoV that would make the fire appear to engulf the entire house, if given the chance and skill.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:50:07 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
It still doesn't fly with me. Manipulation, whether active or passive, is manipulation. |
So, in your world, this image of Batboy 
is equal in truth to any photograph in any newspaper or magazine. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:56:41 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So, in your world, this image of Batboy
is equal in truth to any photograph in any newspaper or magazine. |
POV makes him look a lot worse than he actually is :-P
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:58:27 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
It still doesn't fly with me. Manipulation, whether active or passive, is manipulation. |
So, in your world, this image of Batboy
is equal in truth to any photograph in any newspaper or magazine. |
Lie is a lie right? Whether it is by omission or flat out.
A rose by any other name ... |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 03:10:19 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Lie is a lie right? Whether it is by omission or flat out.
A rose by any other name ... |
Part of the reason I got out of journalism is because that often depends on who is signing your pay check.
Some editors, especially at small publications, prefer not to mention some things.
|
|
