Fake film photography...busted!

Diapositivo said:

A couple of articles about this subject...

http://www.bjp-online.com/2015/02/image-manipulation-hits-world-press-photo/

Click to expand...

This may be the saddest damned photography-related paragraph I've read in a long time (bold emphasis mine):


And the reason this can happen is the ease with which manipulations can now be done. The male dog is licking himself because he can. If he couldn't, he wouldn't...



Ken

Okay... what about 'manipulation' before exposure vs. after? Remember the raising of the US flag in that very famous WW2 photo? Before... after... is there really that much difference?

Old-N-Feeble said:

Okay... what about 'manipulation' before exposure vs. after? Remember the raising of the US flag in that very famous WW2 photo? Before... after... is there really that much difference?

Click to expand...

There's a huge difference.

In the before case the manipulation chooses between multiple possible future outcomes, all of which are potentially valid. Maybe not all preferred. Especially looking back in retrospect. But all always valid. Choose the left-hand fork in the road and for better or worse you will experience the left-hand side of life. Life on the right-hand side will forever remain an unknown experience.

In the after case the manipulation seeks to change an already experienced past outcome. It is intellectually dishonest. It attempts to rewrite history. If in retrospect your experiences on the left-hand side of life sucked, just take a picture, manipulate it to become right-handed, and show it to everyone claiming it's the truth about your life's journey. You will never have to admit you took a wrong turn.

Ken

Ken Nadvornick said:

This may be the saddest damned photography-related paragraph I've read in a long time (bold emphasis mine):




Ken

Click to expand...

You must have missed the news a couple years ago when NOBODY was awarded a prize because all the entries were so awful.

Ken Nadvornick said:

There's a huge difference.

In the before case the manipulation chooses between multiple possible future outcomes, all of which are potentially valid. Maybe not all preferred. Especially looking back in retrospect. But all always valid. Choose the left-hand fork in the road and for better or worse you will experience the left-hand side of life. Life on the right-hand side will forever remain an unknown experience.

In the after case the manipulation seeks to change an already experienced past outcome. It is intellectually dishonest. It attempts to rewrite history. If in retrospect your life on the left-hand side of life sucked, just take a picture, manipulate it to become right-handed, and show it to everyone claiming it's the truth about your life's journey. You will never have to admit you took a wrong turn.

Ken

Click to expand...

I disagree... the WW2 "famous flag-raising" image I refered to was shot several times and "posed". This altered the "supposed" reality of the moment... effectively creating a "lie". So again, what's the difference? Manipulation "before" or "after"? Both are distortions of reality (truth).

In fact, it was not posed. Recheck the historic facts. Many here are familiar with the backstory.

The second flag raising was ordered by one Colonel Chandler Johnson because it was felt the smaller first flag was not sufficiently visible to the Marines continuing to fight in the lowlands below. And also because Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, who was at that moment heading ashore, had indicated he wanted it as a souvenir, and the colonel did not want to give it up. It had nothing to do with restaging for a better photograph.

The photographer Joe Rosenthal almost missed the actual second raising, having to grab his 4x5 Graphic at the last moment and swing it up, frame, and release the shutter all in one motion. Those old Graflex photojournalists were amazing.

For his efforts he won the 1945 Pulitzer Prize for Photography. And the everlasting respect of the United States Marine Corps. In 1996 he was named an Honorary Marine by Commandant of the Marine Corps General Charles C. Krulak.

By his own description ten years after the photograph was made, and hardly a staged or posed event:


But...

Even if the photograph had been staged, so what? The image of it would still be historically correct. Even if that meant historically staged. It would have been an accurate representation of a staged event. A fork in the road choice made.

That choice would have been completely different if Mr. Rosenthal had, after the fact, Photoshopped a larger flag over the initial smaller one. Such an action would have been intellectually dishonest. An attempt to rewrite history. The left-hand road taken, and regretted. A wrong turn in life.

Click here for a detailed history of the flag raising on Iwo Jima. It's a sobering read...

Ken

Old-N-Feeble said:

I disagree... the WW2 "famous flag-raising" image I refered to was shot several times and "posed". This altered the "supposed" reality of the moment... effectively creating a "lie". So again, what's the difference? Manipulation "before" or "after"? Both are distortions of reality (truth).

Click to expand...

You quote a good example of the fact that news photos have been manipulated for generations before digital was even imagined. I knew a press photographer in the 60s who shot a lot of sports, particularly rugby league which is very physical in that players tackle their opponents and often engage in wrestling type moves on the ground. It is not unknown for a player to stand up after one of these moves with his genitals briefly exposed because his shorts have been either torn or pulled down by an opponent. If my friend had taken a great shot of the action a retoucher would paint out the offending bits because otherwise it simply could not be be published as shot (probably still would not be today mostly out of fear of litigation from the player rather than decency considerations).

As far as the image being discussed in this thread, I'm surprised that it has only just been "discovered" here. The story and image has been around for many weeks. The only thing that is dishonest about this image is if the photographer actually did claim that it was shot on TX. Since when has cropping been dishonest? Or is it only dishonest if done digitally rather than on the baseboard of an enlarger? The image has not been materially manipulated and the photographer is the one entitled to feel cheated rather than some of the vociferously self-opinionated digital haters on this forum. OzJohn

I cannot help but wonder why so many here, especially those with a digital slant, appear to be so violently opposed to the principle of photojournalistic integrity. I would have thought that, choice of photo technologies aside, pretty much everyone would have agreed that a high level of journalistic ethics would be a good and desirable thing to emulate.

Instead, I see desperate attempts to justify the process of photographic content manipulations as being completely acceptable in a news-gathering context. Even after the professional organizations involved in such gathering, and the judging of that so gathered, have instituted strict rules in an attempt to maintain high ethical standards.

Perhaps it's not really completely clear to some the exact nature of what it is they are so strongly advocating for?



Ken

Ken Nadvornick said:

There's a huge difference.

In the before case the manipulation chooses between multiple possible future outcomes, all of which are potentially valid. Maybe not all preferred. Especially looking back in retrospect. But all always valid. Choose the left-hand fork in the road and for better or worse you will experience the left-hand side of life. Life on the right-hand side will forever remain an unknown experience.

In the after case the manipulation seeks to change an already experienced past outcome. It is intellectually dishonest. It attempts to rewrite history. If in retrospect your life on the left-hand side of life sucked, just take a picture, manipulate it to become right-handed, and show it to everyone claiming it's the truth about your life's journey. You will never have to admit you took a wrong turn.

Ken

Click to expand...

You are right. It is intellectually dishonest to manipulate the image after the photograph has been taken. I am not talking about dodging and burning, but the major manipulation of the subject matter is the intellectually dishonest manner that has become the steak and potatoes of the fauxto$hopping world.

Sirius Glass said:

... It is intellectually dishonest to manipulate the image after the photograph has been taken. ...

Click to expand...

This is one of the things I like about instant films, original negatives, or coated plate / glass images - there is a realization that the image you see is totally derived from what came through the lens and has not been altered by any personal judgement.

Photography is not reality. How could deceitful photo manipulation change reality?

OzJohn said:

The only thing that is dishonest about this image is if the photographer actually did claim that it was shot on TX. Since when has cropping been dishonest? Or is it only dishonest if done digitally rather than on the baseboard of an enlarger? The image has not been materially manipulated and the photographer is the one entitled to feel cheated rather than some of the vociferously self-opinionated digital haters on this forum. OzJohn

Click to expand...

If you read again the story, you see that the problem is not the cropping, but the elimination (through retouching) of a feet which is inside the retained crop and which disturbs the composition. Without foot the image is clearer. But in a photojournalistic photography contest it is a modification that it is not allowed because it would not be allowed in photojournalistic use.

The rugby/genitals case is different. The publisher of the magazine has the "real" picture, and he decides, for legitimate reasons, to cover the genitals. The problem is when the photojournalist lies to his client, the publisher. The publisher risks having its reputation tainted by a photographer who doesn't play by the rules. The publisher wasn't there and he trusts the photographer that what is depicted by the image has not been altered. And if it was staged, which can be admissible in photoreporting, the publisher must know that it was staged.

A small image on the internet is not the best barometer of verisimilitude, but my first thought was it looked like a digital photograph. I'm one of the (minority?) people who would shoot more digital if the image really did look exactly like film. Sadly it doesn't. It mostly looks like a digital photo with a screen of some kind.

Ken Nadvornick said:

I cannot help but wonder why so many here, especially those with a digital slant, appear to be so violently opposed to the principle of photojournalistic integrity. I would have thought that, choice of photo technologies aside, pretty much everyone would have agreed that a high level of journalistic ethics would be a good and desirable thing to emulate.

Instead, I see desperate attempts to justify the process of photographic content manipulations as being completely acceptable in a news-gathering context. Even after the professional organizations involved in such gathering, and the judging of that so gathered, have instituted strict rules in an attempt to maintain high ethical standards.

Perhaps it's not really completely clear to some the exact nature of what it is they are so strongly advocating for?



Ken

Click to expand...

I'm thinking that the key difference in viewpoint with regards to photojournalistic integrity lies in whether or not the person is acknowledging that the integrity comes long before the photo is taken. We clearly have a different viewpoint on exactly what the principle of photojournalistic integrity is.

Does the photo honestly represent what was going on and being reported on?

Integrity in any form of journalism stems from what is included and what is excluded, whether written, photographed, or otherwise recorded. Go look at the vast majority of photos of the Great Pyramids. Fire up google images and search for "great pyramid of Giza" and look at the all the photos of the piles of stones out in a vasty lonely desert... Now search for "great pyramid of Giza city" to see photos from a slightly different angle.

Photoshop usage is a rather irrelevant metric for photographic integrity if the image is being provided by a dishonest photojournalist. I see it as very illogical to get overly worked up about in a case like this, and find that too many people are using a 'fear of photoshop' as a red herring and banning its use/demanding raw format files is a paper wall to dupe people into feeling safe and trusting of media. If we make all the cowboys wear white hats, then we can trust them all because we'll know they're all good guys.


The best test I've yet seen for for whether a photo has retained integrity is the "Blind friend test". Imagine you are describing the scene to a blind person, and then describing what is shown in the photos of that scene. Do they match up? A similar test may be applied to photos and edits.
In this case, I would have described that there was a man in the background behind the two in the foreground, but I doubt I would have included the foot in that description, thus the foot not being included in a description of the crop of that image? Well, hardly dishonest in my view.

What I do find more dishonest however, is the insistence that this foot was somehow vitally important and somehow makes all the difference in the world.

Some newspapers and other publishers will only accept the RAW image and will do all editing in their offices just to sure the photographer isn't playing games. If you're running a legitimate newspaper company or magazine, loss of your readership's trust that you're telling the truth can hurt the bottom line.

I'm all for integrity in photojournalism. My viewpoint is there's no significant difference between manipulation before the photo is take, or afterward. Manipulation is manipulation.

The one thing you guys are all missing here is that it's not a strong image to begin with, and
in my opinion, wasn't worthy of it's accolades. Why not shoot the image tight...get in there, frame
it, shoot it and print it full frame. What I learned working with good photographers is you have to
move...bob and weave like a boxer to compose and get it right in the Goddamned camera. Do
you think James Nachtwey would have cropped in to get an image? No. The great ones never
crop.




Weak photo in my opinion, not worthy of any attention. Photographer needs to up his game.

J~

Luckless said:

In this case, I would have described that there was a man in the background behind the two in the foreground, but I doubt I would have included the foot in that description, thus the foot not being included in a description of the crop of that image? Well, hardly dishonest in my view.

Click to expand...

The dishonesty here is to have competed with other people on a not fair ground. Other people don't eliminate feet and this photographer did. Other people might have had better (not very hard) pictures than this, but with some kind of problem that they could have solved by a bit of retouching, but they didn't submit them because they don't cheat.
Regardless of the merit of the image, it's cheating that it's wrong, in a contest.

It's true it looks like a bad scan from a magazine in print. Digital and analogue are not distinguishable on a monitor screen! There is this absurd wave of "film look" on the internet now, that is applied with digital filters: colours are totally wrong, sharpness is out of the window, horizon is slanted, noise is inflated and this is supposed to "look like film".

I'm amazed at the number of people who consider this simply a contest rules issue, ignoring the underlying illusion that the contest is trying to promote with the rule.

Exaggerating for emphasis: it's as if they were promoting a contest of pet-torturing photos and you were all arguing whether photographers who really weren't torturing pets should be thrown out or not, rather than whether pet-torture was good or bad.

Promoting the illusion that news photography is objective is bad. Simply. It's both disingenuous and slightly evil for a news mouthpiece to push that concept. And I say that as a former prize-winning (long ago and far away) photojournalist.

Luckless said:

Yes, what consequences are there to removing signs of an irrelevant and distracting element from a photo which would make the photo harder to understand?

Click to expand...

Luckless,

I like that phrasing.

If it was a print of mine from film, I would have spotted out the distracting foot.

Drat those arbitrary, capricious standards. The photograph in question was not manipulated beyond my standards.

If I were judging, I'd have a hard time stomaching the fake black and white.

silveror0 said:

... the scene was in a junkyard with trash scattered all about.

...

he was in the process of cleaning up the clutter by removing some soda pop cans from his image.

Click to expand...

This is funny.

ic-racer said:

Classic 35mm Tri-X in D76 that we all know and love...

Click to expand...

In reading the linked article, I see nothing claiming or implying the photo was captured on or digitally remastered to 135 Tri-X with processing in D-76 ! I think the OP topic does a disservice to the photographer of the photo by claiming what he did via the topic name.

My own roots are deeply embedded in photojournalistic photography efforts from several decades ago,. So I view extensive changes to an image as more 'artistic interpretations' than 'capture of the real world in images', whether done in the darkroom or in the PC. Yet I am firmly on the fence about this photo.

As for the 'alteration', I see darkening of the overall (crop) and some greater burning in of some areas, to mask the person in the background from attention. That is not nearly as obvious as digital postprocessing to replace pixels and conceal that someone was in the background, nor using conventional film-based alterations via darkroom techniques. The statement about 'changing the elements of a picture' I am not so certain about when it is print exposure time and dodging/burning as the only methods. So I am very much on the fence in judgment of the photographer's apparent guilt of 'alteration'; I would have to read the literal rules to fall on one side of the fence or the other.

Yet the image in question is NOT FILM...the article states that the British Journal of Photography rule is, "The content of the image must not be altered. Only retouching which conforms to the currently accepted standards in the industry is allowed."
This year, for the first time, photographers were required to submit RAW image files if the judges suspected that photographs were manipulated beyond what the rules allowed...to examine the original (digital) image for evidence of pixel replacement, and while there is digital burning in and exposure changes to darken the shot, the original pixels are in the shot, but merely made less apparent to the viewer...is THAT not permitted? Interpretation of the rule comes with distinctions of what is acceptable 'retouching' vs. unacceptable alteration.
David Campbell of World Press states, "“Material alteration to the image by including or excluding a certain item” yet it is the ENTIRE photo which is darkened in this case, and if one looks at the photo one might be able to claim only that a vignette 'applied in the darkroom' helps to eliminate from attention certain portions of the scene...and is vignetting to be considered as 'material alterations'?! (I refresh that I know this was a digitally shot, but I am applying standards that formed decades ago from film photojournalism). Veteran photojournalists openly admit to having used a much heavier hand in the darkroom days, dodging and burning significantly to create drama in the photographs. So some previously acceptable alterations are no longer tolerated in the very black and very white analytical digital pendulum.

It all boils down to the subjectivity, and at this point we don’t really know what’s a fiction photo or a nonfiction photo. So the hard line is applied, as it has been again in this above example.

[edit]I just found this explicit explanation from AP's policy:
So dodging and burning in are OK! But not eliminated backgrounds. I just landed him on the 'Guilty' side of the fence!

wiltw said:

AP's policy:
"Minor adjustments in Photoshop are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction (analogous to the burning and dodging previously used in darkroom processing of images) and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. The removal of “red eye” from photographs is not permissible."

Click to expand...

I think that the sentence saying "Changes in density, contrast, color... are not acceptable" is at odds with the sentence which says it's acceptable to make minor adjustments, including "conversion into grayscale." I think AP's policy needs improvement.

It took forever, but you finally saw the light.

Are we challenging 'truth' or 'honesty' in photography?

Actually the photographer was busted for erasing the foot in the background. That is irrelevant to me as photograph retouching predates the digital medium by hundreds of years. What I find offensive is the presentation of the work as a B&W film photograph.