Fake film photography...busted!

[Sirius Glass]

It is like the digi-snaps that I see with fauto$hopped in rebates that either show a Tri-X rebate with a color digi-snap or a Kodachrome rebate with a black & white digi-snap. It is called fakin' it but not makin' it 'cause they jus' don't have what it takes to do it.

 

[CropDusterMan]

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.

"Offensive"? What?
Where does it say anything in the linked article about it being a faked or presumed faked film shot? It says nothing about Tri-x or Rodinal D76 etc...it's simply a digital photo,
a shitty one at that, and the hack that took it got busted for image manipulation beyond the allowed rules. Sure, he's added grain, contrast etc, but it's not like I see sprocket holes
or the faint letters saying Kodak Safety Film. JHC. This is just another post that excites all the flat-Earthers and gets their Y-fronts in a bunch with everyone crying foul of how digital and it's practitioners are a lie
and its ruining the world. Good photographers are good photographers, and they'll be that with an M4 around their neck or a Nikon digital.
This is what it sounds like around here sometimes...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

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

Generally speaking, by changing perception and thus people's attitudes and actions.

 

[Bill Burk]

It took forever, but you finally saw the light.

I've learned there is a Skype emoticon for that. It's called tubelight.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

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.

The removal of the foot is a bit precious in its carry-over, and is as much symptomatic of lousy photographic composition on the part of the photograph, and his planning as it is with a desire to "right a wrong" cheaply and presumably and hopefully without being noticed.

Truth in photojournalism hasn't necessarily, historically, been a bastion of that league.

Hand colouring and toning, covering up of blemishes, altering of backgrounds etc. — even recolouring a family dog's coat to a more agreeable colour...lots of examples come to mind. My dad's RAAF staff portrait (I still have it) was shot on Kodak B&W (1941), then in the studio went for hand colouring, covering up of a crease in the background and "sparkle" added to his uniform buttons. All this with a brush. Original? Faux? Unpalatable? No. Still disagree? Stiff cheddar. It's alteration. And suddenly (6 years later...) covering up a foot is the new carcass swinging from the tree?

What I find offensive is the presentation of the work as a B&W film photograph.

That's a bit strong. What could be read as offensive is when somebody describes it as a Tri-X photo in D76. Nowhere in the petapixel article is it described as such.

I am emphatically not a fan of the now rampant alteration of the fundamental qualities of a photograph in the digital epoch. But it's what you get when you make the process too easy, from the moment you press the button to the next when it appears on the screen and doesn't look right. Just remember alteration of a photograph, including cropping, colouring, D&B, local tinting, spotting of blemishes and even a fly on the background wall,etcetera, is not confined to digital, never has been.

 

[blockend]

I am emphatically not a fan of the now rampant alteration of the fundamental qualities of a photograph in the digital epoch. But it's what you get when you make the process too easy, from the moment you press the button to the next when it appears on the screen and doesn't look right. Just remember alteration of a photograph, including cropping, colouring, D&B, local tinting, spotting of blemishes and even a fly on the background wall,etcetera, is not confined to digital, never has been.

Indeed. It's the ease of manipulation that's changed things. The removal of an out of favour committee member from a Kremlin balcony photograph required large format copy cameras and expert retouchers. Now it requires familiarity with Photoshop and a few minutes with a mouse. The aim of both is to deceive. Most photographers do not have the aesthetic sensibility to improve an image. They think taking a lamp post and a stray foot out will make a bad picture good. It won't. The viewfinder is where pictures are made, and the rest is letting in speak. Editing is cutting its tongue out and claiming it's a Trappist.

 

[Diapositivo]

Hand colouring and toning, covering up of blemishes, altering of backgrounds etc. — even recolouring a family dog's coat to a more agreeable colour...lots of examples come to mind. My dad's RAAF staff portrait (I still have it) was shot on Kodak B&W (1941), then in the studio went for hand colouring, covering up of a crease in the background and "sparkle" added to his uniform buttons. All this with a brush. Original? Faux? Unpalatable? No.

A portrait is a portrait. Retouching always was part of a work well done, and colouring was normal. That is at the other extreme than reportage as far as ethics of manipulation is concerned. In reportage your client wants absolute non-manipulation. In portrait your client wants manipulation and pays for it. And even colouring old reportage is ethically permissible. There's an entire industry now colouring old WWI and WWII epoch footage. But they tell you it is coloured. They don't pretend it's a WWI colour footage. What is adimissible in other photographic fields is not in photojournalism.

I don't expect Marc Anthony to have pronounced that exact speech that Shakespeare puts in his mouth. But if an historian finds a transcript of his speach, I expect him to transmit it to me without his own alterations.

 

[miha]

W. Eugene Smith, Spanish Wake:

Manipulated?

 

[miha]

Rodčenko, White Sea Canal:

Manipulated?

 

[Beilja]

I find this picture really beautifull, and so do not care about it being staged or manipulated.
If i happened to find it on a newspaper otherwise, i would expect it to be non-manipulated.

W. Eugene Smith, Spanish Wake:

Manipulated?

 

[miha]

Reuters?

Manipulated?

 

[Diapositivo]

Miha, what's your point?

A picture as the one of the dear extinct is not reportage, is photography. The man is not dead, you know.

The Obama picture, as you very well know, is "manipulated" by the Economist themselves. The manipulation was not made by the photographer, but by the publisher, for clear and easy to understand editorial reasons, which are well explained by the Economist.

In a magazine cover you can put anything: a drawing, a collage, a montage...

 

[miha]

Miha, what's your point?
A picture as the one of the dear extinct is not reportage, is photography. The man is not dead, you know.

Are you serious? It's a grand reportage, financed by Life Magazine. Smith included several European countries, and dedicated 2 months to Spain alone.
The man pictured is dead.

The Obama picture, as you very well know, is "manipulated" by the Economist themselves. The manipulation was not made by the photographer, but by the publisher, for clear and easy to understand editorial reasons, which are well explained by the Economist.


In a magazine cover you can put anything: a drawing, a collage, a montage...

Interesting take. Smith and Rodčenko both manipulated their photograps for clear and easy to understand reasons.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

We clearly have a different viewpoint on exactly what the principle of photojournalistic integrity is.

Yes, we do. Seriously different viewpoints.

My expectation is that within the context of news reportage the individual doing that reporting does not alter the facts of the event being reported upon. You seem to feel that as long as the so-called spirit of the report matches what the reporter thinks should be happening at the event,* then that reporter can freely modify the facts of the event to produce what he may feel is a clearer and more easily understood report.

Adding or removing elements in a reportage photograph is absolutely no different than adding or removing facts in a reportage article.

Should a reporter change the name of a witness to something easier to pronounce, without changing what that witness said? You know, more difficult names (say, like my own) only makes the report harder to read. If all difficult names were just changed to "Smith" or "Jones" then the report would be far less cluttered. Doing so would not alter the testimony. And besides, no one reading the report cares about stranger's names, right? They only care about what they said.

What's the big deal?

Should Mr. Rosenthal have Photoshopped in an even larger flag? Perhaps with more stars clearly visible? And maybe also added a better background, since the factual one really sucks? Doing so would not have altered the essential meaning of the flag-raising event. A flag was still going up. Altering those two supporting facts would only have made the essence of that event easier to grasp for the viewer. Or perhaps easier to reproduce in newsprint.

What's the big deal?

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

By simple basic definition, no. Not if elements of the composition have been added or removed after the photo was created. This is not a subtle distinction. There is no wiggle room in the definition of honest. Partially honest is also partially dishonest. This is not rocket science.

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.

The partial foot is utterly meaningless, regardless of whether it is included or excluded. This should have been apparent from the very beginning. The issues arising from its intentionally unacknowledged removal are the critical issues here. It concerns me greatly that a significant number of posters to this thread apparently cannot see beyond their feet. Both literally and figuratively.

Ken

* In the case here, people standing in the background of photographs should be keeping their shoes out of locations in a composition where they might appear to be extra fingers...

 

[Diapositivo]

Are you serious? It's a grand reportage, financed by Life Magazine. Smith included several European countries, and dedicated 2 months to Spain alone.
The man pictured is dead.
.

Regarding the Economist, you should read the explanation the Economist gave and understand it is a cover.

Regarding this reportage, which I didn't know, what can I say? It's evidently posed but, if the purpose of the reportage is the depiction of the local customs, and if the local accept to pose in front of a dead man (money is never too much) then it is a legitimate way to document the fact. A "documentary" image I would call it. In a documentary a certain reconstructin of the fact is mandatory, like when you tie a rabbit to a pole and then film the eagle "capturing" it, or when you mount different sequences of a lion hunt in one sequence. Industry practices allow that. There is a clear understanding that it is made to better explain to the viewer the fact. The point, which you seem to insist to ignore, is that the dishonesty is by the photographer toward the publisher, not toward the general public. The publisher must know what exactly is the nature of the picture. Then he can use it even in a collage or in whichever way he sees fit. But the photographer cannot lie regarding the image he proposes to the publisher or the agency.

Now if, in that picture, the face of the dead man had been substituted with another face, or if some elements of the picture had been altered AFTER the capture, without informin the publisher, that I think would have been extremely questionable for that kind of picture. But again, it is posed. It's not "photojournalism" in the sense that you happen to be there and capture the scene which is in front of you. The photographer, in that case, presumably might have arranged the persons around the dead in the way that he preferred. He probably shot that picture with a tripod.

You probably know this case:
http://petapixel.com/2010/07/19/getty-photographer-terminated-over-altered-golf-photo/

Getty was absolutely right in stopping collaboration with that photographer.

The Economist cover:
http://petapixel.com/2010/07/05/controversy-crops-up-over-economist-cover-photo/

The photographer did not lie to the Economist about the image. The Economist prepared the cover, not the photographer.

 

[Luckless]

Adding or removing elements in a reportage photograph is absolutely no different than adding or removing facts in a reportage article.

This is the core of the issue. facts. That the foot exists is a fact, but not one even remotely relevant to the event at hand. We do not rip reporters apart for not including 'facts' along the lines of one of the security dogs at the State of the Union Address taking a leak on a planter, and it makes about as much sense to make a fuss over an obscured foot that increases the clarity of the image.

But my key point throughout this is about this weird fallacy that a photograph is somehow a holy and irrefutable truth, and that "If only we have the original image, then we'll know what really happened." Except that isn't remotely the case unless we equipe all our reporters with google-earth style 360° video cameras running 24/7 so that we can see what they choose to include or exclude from their experience. And even then it is 'iffy at best'.

http://i.imgur.com/HKft6FV.jpg
A shy fox who was only in the open for a moment before darting off into the brush like anyone would expect, somewhere out in the country, a nice peaceful and quiet day miles away from anywhere, and I spent all afternoon walking alone to try and get that photo, right?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@46.2573317,-63.1357369,297m/data=!3m1!1e3

Well, actually it is an urban fox who really doesn't give a damn about humans other than to keep 20 feet or so away and go about its business, photographed somewhere that is a few minutes casual stroll to a Starbucks.

(And for clarity, the image shared in this example is actually a mid-edit image. I don't have access to the original right at this moment, which includes a cell tower in the background, but could have easily been cropped down for the same effect for this example.)

A photographer does not remotely need photoshop or a darkroom to tell bold face lies with an image. If you want to lie with a photo, then the lie just as easily starts before you even pick a camera up.

 

[Diapositivo]

But my key point throughout this is about this weird fallacy that a photograph is somehow a holy and irrefutable truth, and that "If only we have the original image, then we'll know what really happened."

I think I agree with you on that. A photograph can convey a partial truth, naturally. Reality is more complicated than a photograph. And a photograph can be utilized to convey a message, can be prone to a twisted interpretation etc. Each photography is a "statement". The choice of which photograph to publish is, in itself, not neutral at all. Reality is not "self-depicting" through pictures. Interpretation of the world remains something to be made by human intelligence.

The point here is a bit different: where is the red line that a photojournalist must not cross in his relation with his agency/publisher.

The golf picture distributed by Getty Images would have been very legitimately edited, the way it was edited, for a magazine cover having with subject that golfer. It's a cover, it has to depict a theme, the content of the magazine. If the subject is the golfer, well it should be clean and clear. It's basic journalism. But the photographer cannot alter the picture he sends to the feed. The publisher will do it. Simple as that.

 

[miha]

Now if, in that picture, the face of the dead man had been substituted with another face, or if some elements of the picture had been altered AFTER the capture, without informin the publisher, that I think would have been extremely questionable for that kind of picture. But again, it is posed. It's not "photojournalism" in the sense that you happen to be there and capture the scene which is in front of you. The photographer, in that case, presumably might have arranged the persons around the dead in the way that he preferred. He probably shot that picture with a tripod.

Diapositivo, nothing was posed here, please google, Smith was a master printer, he manipulated the image back in his darkroom. The same is true for Rodčenko (Rodchenko), google that image as well.

p.s. I didn't know about the golf picture.

p.p.s. If someone was using their lens wide open deliberately so that nothing from the background would be recorded vs cloning out the same background subject later - is there a difference? Not to me.

 

[miha]

A photographer does not remotely need photoshop or a darkroom to tell bold face lies with an image. If you want to lie with a photo, then the lie just as easily starts before you even pick a camera up.

Precisely.

 

[Sirius Glass]

But my key point throughout this is about this weird fallacy that a photograph is somehow a holy and irrefutable truth, and that "If only we have the original image, then we'll know what really happened."

Oh, I see like this ...

That is ok, right? Well then we can just throw out all our cameras and paint fauxtographs with Fauxto$hop! We don't need no stinkin' cameras no more!

 

[removed account4]

One must presume that the rules were made available prior to anyone entering the contest. I'm sure no one held a gun to the photographer's head and forced him to make an entry that did not conform to the rules. He chose not to follow the rules. When he got caught and was disqualified, I do not understand how anyone can say it doesn't matter. I believe that this is symptomatic of many things in today's society ... get away with all that you can because there are often no consequences. I believe he got what he deserved. I applaud the disqualification decision.

i don't think he was trying to cheat/grift/pull one over on the judges &c.
i think he interpreted the rules in a way
that he thought it allowed him to remove the foot.
he didn't argue that the judgement was wrong, he wanted
to present the original photograph to show the foot.
im obviously no judge and don't play one on TV but
i don't think removing the foot compromises the integrity of his photograph
or the integrity of him as a photographer, but that's me and my opinion really doesnt' matter.
obviously there are people here, and other places of great importance who believe
that nothing this photographer does can be trusted, that he is deceitful and has no integrity or
journalistic scruples because of this, and wonder what else he has done this "trick" with
and fooled everyone who read the artiicles / saw his photographs. was the blood and
swollen face in the portrait real? was that hand real, the bandages, the whole situation?
or has everything he's done all been faked too.
its a bit too much if you ask me.

 

[Maris]

...A photographer does not remotely need photoshop or a darkroom to tell bold face lies with an image. If you want to lie with a photo, then the lie just as easily starts before you even pick a camera up.

Just because someone misinterprets what they think they see in a photograph doesn't mean the photograph is lying. Photographs, and I don't include digital picture-making, cannot lie. They come into being via purely physical and chemical processes that enforce an indexical relationship between subject and photograph.

A photograph promises you one thing for sure: there is a one to one relationship between points in a photograph and points in the subject matter. All else is available for conjecture; rightly or wrongly.

 

[MattKing]

There is no inherent honesty in any photograph, other than it is a photograph.

A photograph is a facsimile - an analog of something else.

One cannot have honesty or dishonesty arising out of a photograph itself. There has to be some sort of representation attached to a photograph before one can speak of honesty or dishonesty, and the representation is what is honest or dishonest.

It is the reason that photographs themselves are never used alone as evidence in court cases (some statutory provisions excepted). They must be accompanied by some sort of evidence that is accepted.

Some witness who swears that the photograph is a reasonable analog of reality. Or some witness that says, e.g., that the automatic cameras have accurate time stamps, and the image has not been manipulated.

A half sharp cel phone picture taken by a 13 year old girl plus a reliable and believable person verifying how well the picture shows something is together far more useful, reliable and honest than a perfectly shot and composed Ansel Adams photograph verified by Bernie Madoff.

The combination of representation plus photograph may be easier to verify with some types of photographic procedures than others, but that is only really relevant when the author of the representation is unavailable.

 

[miha]

A photograph promises you one thing for sure: there is a one to one relationship between points in a photograph and points in the subject matter. All else is available for conjecture; rightly or wrongly.

Does it really? There is a lens (or a pinhole) between the two. A lens (a man made tool) can easily alter the "points"

 

[Maris]

...p.p.s. If someone was using their lens wide open deliberately so that nothing from the background would be recorded vs cloning out the same background subject later - is there a difference? Not to me.

The true subject in photography is not the things in front of the camera. The true subject is the thing in the camera: the real optical image formed by the lens. It is the real optical image that actually hits the film and occasions the photograph where it strikes. The photograph is a picture of this image. And the image describes only indirectly, via the transfer function of the lens, the configuration of the external world.