I thought PJ doesn't allow retouching

I know some photojournalist have gotten into trouble cloning areas of their pics. But does manipulating tonality count as retouching? How far can photojournalist retouch their images?

https://petapixel.com/2018/03/05/black-white-comparison-retouching-tell-us-photojournalism/

I believe if any changes can dramatically change how people interpret the scene and leads to an erroneous conclusion about what is REALLY going on, then it's not allowed.

What has ethics ever had to do with journalism... really?

A lot, actually.

I happen to know the photographer who created the work of the Rohingya, he's from my hometown...he is an incredible talent and has rock solid ethics.

To answer the question, I'd ask another one: how are the two examples any different than using variable contrast filters in a darkroom? In pushing your film to amp up the contrast and grittiness?

Both routes convey a mood or emotion and, most importantly, do NOT alter what is happening in the frame or misrepresent what is happening.

You might as well argue that producing pictures in B&W misrepresents reality.

Here are the National Geographic guidelines for reader submissions. I suspect they are more fleshed out for staff photographers.

faberryman said:

Here are the National Geographic guidelines for reader submissions. I suspect they are more fleshed out for staff photographers.

Click to expand...

Great link! I wonder if there's an industry-wide guideline for PJs? Or is it different with each media outlet?

The NPPA has a Code of Ethics which addresses issues surrounding image making, but doesn't address what post processing is allowed with any specificity.

Mainecoonmaniac said:

Great link! I wonder if there's an industry-wide guideline for PJs? Or is it different with each media outlet?

Click to expand...

I should add that National Geographic requires its photographers to submit their RAW files to establish that its guidelines have been adhered to.

We should be more concerned about truth and accuracy spoken by our political leaders than PJ's imho.

It may not be unethical, but coloring old B&W images should be discouraged...perhaps with tar and feathers...

Vaughn said:

It may not be unethical, but coloring old B&W images should be discouraged...perhaps with tar and feathers...

Click to expand...

Ted Turner found that out too late. His colorized B&W movies were abominations.

I think National Geographic may have a good thing going with their guidelines. Perhaps a good rule of thumb to draw from that is "Does it look the way you saw it when you pressed the button?" If not, it's not representative of the original scene and therefore questionable for photojournalism purposes. Maybe good art, but bad photojournalism.

As for colorization, when an image is colorized, it ceases to be the original image and becomes more of an "artists rendering."

Which I don't see anything wrong with, by the way. I enjoy colorized images as a way to look into the past, but not as if I am looking at an "enhancement" of the original photo. It's a different animal.

I just finished reading an interesting article (again) about Eugene Smith and how some of his famous images were actually photo composition with multiple negatives.... For years I thought Salgado was super incredible based on some of the books I saw that were really pushed on the press, when seeing the prints live in print not so graphic.

Stylistically we all try to embed our LOOK on the work we do which in most cases does not match reality..

I take an apparently odd view of photojournalism ethics, and hold with the idea that the image (Or video) presented to the world should be a fair and honest reflection of what was seen and felt. - If we do not object to writers editing and revising their content before publication, then I find it weird that we, as a society, can get so bent out of shape over the idea of editing an image at all if it still holds true to being "A fair and honest reflection".

- If you are taking photos of something happy, and you are feeling happy while photographing them, and the mood of those around you was happy, and etc... Then any editing or 'adjustments' you make while readying for publication should not only reflect that, but the angles and content with regards to composition you select to photograph at the time should also reflect that. I hold that there are far worse ethical sins a photographer can make with regards to misrepresenting an event than merely doing post-production edits. With a little care and attention you can photograph a depressing sombre funeral to appear as a happy and joyous looking event without touching a photo editor.


https://petapixel.com/2010/03/03/world-press-photo-disqualifies-winner/ - is an excellent example of what I feel to be an overreaction in the viewpoint of "NO EDITS!": "The Edit", in my mind, served to increase the fairness, honesty, and clarity of the image. - When pulled in that tightly the context of the (irrelevant) person in the background becomes removed, which in turn makes their foot distracting and possibly even confusing within the context of the image. If we do not lynch writers for failing to mention that the reporter beside them had the sniffles while they were listening to a press release on some important matter when they file their report, then I find it odd that we get hung up on effectively the same thing being done with photos.

(Especially in that example, where the image is clearly presented as an artistic impression, but otherwise lacks useful information that may impact a viewer's impression of the truth. It doesn't adequately show who is involved, or where they are, and barely even describes what is going on. It would be a horrendous breach of ethics to caption the unedited image "Good Samaritan bandages hand after neighbour tripped and fell on broken bottles" or something, but frankly I find the social lynching over the edited foot to be ethically dishonest, as it comes with an implied "You can totally trust OUR images that we didn't edit, and you shouldn't think about all the dozens of other ways photojournalists can tell lies while showing unedited photos"...)

Having to edit an image is not ideal, and any photojournalist who makes a habit of constantly doing minor edits like that should be held in low standing in my mind, but I see zero issue in edited visuals if they are done with the idea of 'fair and honest reflection of reality' in mind, and the nature and reasons why an edit was done are made publicly known. And while I have issues with the failure to disclose the edits in the case of the foot, I have to say they're pretty minor issues in my view, and not something I would lose sleep over.


The "Ethics and Truths" in photojournalism begin before you even pick up a camera, and ironically I find the obsession many people have over the issue of "Was the photo edited or not" serve more to distract from that point than they do to actually reinforce journalistic ethics in general.


And related to that, I find the stance of demanding "Camera's raw files" to be ethically laughable, as it is washing your hands of responsibility of due diligence and oversight over who is providing content, and is a pure fantasy land idea that it somehow offers any actual protection or credibility. In short, it is an ethical smokescreen - Nothing is done, achieved, or actually protected by this demand, but organizations get to wave it around as a banner while chanting "We're Doing Something!", and otherwise ignore what should be the core of ethics in journalism: A fair and honest reflection of reality.


The problem with 'demanding RAWs" is that 'raw camera files' are not actually magical. They are not unique, and most aren't even encrypted or signed in any way. Their specifications might not be well known in the general public*, but it does not take astounding levels of technical know-how and googling at this point to dredge up suitable tools to re-encode edited data back into common 'raw file' formats. .cr2 (Canon) files are a container, and pretty well understood when digging around online, as were whatever Nikon was using last I looked into them. Even the "securely signed" stuff can be worked around with a bit of creativity and access to suitable equipment. It is data on your own computer, and hardware in your own hand, which means it is not remotely secure from you doing whatever you please with it.




*But how many in the general public can give details on the specifications of an edited .jpg file?

Eric Rose said:

We should be more concerned about truth and accuracy spoken by our political leaders than PJ's imho.

Click to expand...

Likewise for news organizations which are even more powerful due to their broad and continuous influence.

For example, I could photograph a... a... football stadium (yeah)... three hours before the game or three hours after the game and make it look like no one was interested in watching Man City and Norwich. Like the place was totally empty, right.

Theo Sulphate said:

Likewise for news organizations which are even more powerful due to their broad and continuous influence.

For example, I could photograph a... a... football stadium (yeah)... three hours before the game or three hours after the game and make it look like no one was interested in watching Man City and Norwich. Like the place was totally empty, right.

Click to expand...

I'll see your orange and raise you one apple.

BrianShaw said:

What has ethics ever had to do with journalism... really?

Click to expand...

wow, mean. Sorry -- spent 42 years in the business, got to take issue, even if you are trying to be funny.

As to the point: The guidelines in my time were that the only changes you could do were those you could also do in a traditional darkroom -- some dodging and burning, changing contrast, dust removal. Stuff like that.

Removing people/trees/etc was not allowed, and still is not. I would refer you to the latest AP stylebook for guidance. The news organizations are actually very strict -- dare one say ethical? -- about this.

Eric Rose said:

I'll see your orange and raise you one apple.

Click to expand...

My post, however, was related to ethics and photojournalism; yours was related to "truth and accuracy spoken by our political leaders".

My point was that news organizations, which are more influential and powerful, can control perception by what they present. I am less concerned that a photojournalist or related staff will manipulate an image than I am concerned about the choice of images presented. I can go to an event and by choosing what to photograph and what not to photograph, I can present my viewpoint more effectively than I could ever do by manipulation, retouching, or cropping.

The Daily Mail in UK got caught with one of most pointless airbrushings ever

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/08/tottenham-coach-airbrushed-mail_n_5109257.html

As an ex-PJ I always find these discussions both amusing and disturbing. It's ridiculous to promote the idea that a photograph is "truth" if it hasn't been manipulated at some single point in the process because that point is easy to police. I chose where to stand, when to push the button, what to print, what to leave out at every step. It was editoral from the moment I decided whether to attend or not. To judge "truth" from one small factor is the kind of insidiously dangerous kind of idea you'd have expected amateurs to come up with. I'm glad I no longer have the job. Any time you get information from anyone and take the word of the potential liar who's handing it to you that it's the truth, you deserve what you get.

The challenge we should take up is to specify an equally ridiculous choke point for truth from writers. Can they have written the truth about China if they write on a Chinese-made computer? Isn't that a conflict-of-interest?

mdarnton said:

As an ex-PJ I always find these discussions both amusing and disturbing. It's ridiculous to promote the idea that a photograph is "truth" if it hasn't been manipulated at some single point in the process because that point is easy to police. I chose where to stand, when to push the button, what to print, what to leave out at every step. It was editoral from the moment I decided whether to attend or not. To judge "truth" from one small factor is the kind of insidiously dangerous kind of idea you'd have expected amateurs to come up with. I'm glad I no longer have the job. Any time you get information from anyone and take the word of the potential liar who's handing it to you that it's the truth, you deserve what you get.

Click to expand...

So do you advocate allowing retouching because it's all biased anyway?

I advocate doing what is necessry to communicate the point that is being made, without going so far as to make a point that wasn't there at all. That's journalism.

mdarnton said:

I advocate doing what is necessry to communicate the point that is being made, without going so far as to make a point that wasn't there at all. That's journalism.

Click to expand...

pitiful

OK, Craig, where would you stop? Would you photograph blind so as not to insert your bias? What's pitiful is not considering all the aspects of this situation. Believing that one simple rule will save your frome being deceived is pathetic.

mdarnton said:

OK, Craig, where would you stop?

Click to expand...

The question is not where do you stop. The question is where do you start. The no retouching guideline It is not a panacea, nor is it intended to be. It is just one step. For others, see the NPPA Code of Ethics. Your solution to the ethical dilemma is to throw out all the rules since collectively they can't prevent bias. Really?