Is cropping a photo lying?

[Miskuss]

Who cares what it is?

The point of it all is the Image!

Yes, yes, yes, you nailed it!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Is cropping a photo a lying?
Yes, it is a lie of omission.

Does that matter?
It depends...

I though it was a lie of emulsion.

Steve

 

[Bosaiya]

I though it was a lie of emulsion.

Steve

It's all just smoke and mirrors.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

Where you point your camera is "cropping". Is that lying? It might be regarded as being selective with the truth but "lying"? I don't think so.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'd say both images are truthful.

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/09/david-hume-kennerly-accuses-newsweek-of-photo-fakery.html

Kennerly's image says that Cheney is a paterfamilias, symbolized by the traditional role of carving the roast at dinner as the family looks on--not as formal as Norman Rockwell, but in the same vein, and I would guess that this image of Cheney is probably true.

The Newsweek image isn't quite as effective, but the prominence of this image (full page) in the context of the present discourse about Cheney and the article it was illustrating (Jonathan Alter, "Cheney's Misguided Morality"), it looks like it is trying to suggest that Cheney is a cold, bloodthirsty torturer who would stop at nothing to protect the interests of the oil industry, and I would guess that this image of Cheney is probably also true.

 

[Domenico Foschi]

I find it a poor choice of image.
All he had to do was to get a shot of him. Nothing more. The nature of that SOB comes out by itself.
The carving thing is very ineffective in my opinion

I'd say both images are truthful.

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/09/david-hume-kennerly-accuses-newsweek-of-photo-fakery.html

Kennerly's image says that Cheney is a paterfamilias, symbolized by the traditional role of carving the roast at dinner as the family looks on--not as formal as Norman Rockwell, but in the same vein, and I would guess that this image of Cheney is probably true.

The Newsweek image isn't quite as effective, but the prominence of this image (full page) in the context of the present discourse about Cheney and the article it was illustrating (Jonathan Alter, "Cheney's Misguided Morality"), it looks like it is trying to suggest that Cheney is a cold, bloodthirsty torturer who would stop at nothing to protect the interests of the oil industry, and I would guess that this image of Cheney is probably also true.

 

[2F/2F]

I'd say both images are truthful.

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/09/david-hume-kennerly-accuses-newsweek-of-photo-fakery.html

Kennerly's image says that Cheney is a paterfamilias, symbolized by the traditional role of carving the roast at dinner as the family looks on--not as formal as Norman Rockwell, but in the same vein, and I would guess that this image of Cheney is probably true.

The Newsweek image isn't quite as effective, but the prominence of this image (full page) in the context of the present discourse about Cheney and the article it was illustrating (Jonathan Alter, "Cheney's Misguided Morality"), it looks like it is trying to suggest that Cheney is a cold, bloodthirsty torturer who would stop at nothing to protect the interests of the oil industry, and I would guess that this image of Cheney is probably also true.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Demonizing Cheney is actually morally required! That man was bad. Anyway, this article does make one think.

http://kottke.org/09/09/is-cropping-a-photo-lying

Regards, Art.

Maybe there is a different question that needs to be answered first.

Do you expect a photograph to represent the truth and why?

 

[Chan Tran]

cropping is not lying!
to answer Ralph. I do expect a photograph to represent the truth only what is shown in the pictures ( Although many photographs today are manipulated beyond this point) not to the extent of the viewer interpretation or whether or not the people in the pictures were acting etc...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

cropping is not lying!
to answer Ralph. I do expect a photograph to represent the truth only what is shown in the pictures ( Although many photographs today are manipulated beyond this point) not to the extent of the viewer interpretation or whether or not the people in the pictures were acting etc...

I also expect a photograph to represent the truth, if taken and presented by people or an organization who claim to use the medium in that way (news, government, etc). Other than that, if the photographer does not claim to represent the truth, we have no reason or right to expect it to be.

My photographs have nothing to do with the truth! They are images of my imagination.

 

[Nikanon]

Read "Republic" by plato

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Read "Republic" by plato

Are we confusing justice with truth?

 

[removed account4]

ralph,
i don't believe photographs represent reality/the truth
it is a shadow of the truth
then again ... it all depends on what "the truth" happens to be ..

every person ( and machine ) that operates a camera
has his/her/its own bias. the bias clouds the lens
with cropping, and other image controls ( dof, perspective, FL &C )
and these devices alter reality.
but then again my reality, and your reality
and everyone else's are all different

who is to say what the truth/reality actually is ..

 

[Lukas Werth]

Regarding the original question, and regarding the question of truth in photography: I don't think that cropping constitutes lying, but I think it may constitute a sort of dishonesty, for the following reasons: a photograph constitutes my intentional gaze which I freeze and present in such a way as I think it best, or as I am best able to do, or care to do, to present or communicate my intention to the viewer. What counts, or so I think, is therefore no truth as such (of course not!), but my intention in creating a picture. I may crop or otherwise manipulate the original negative or image file to my heart's desire, who is there to tell me what to do or to leave?
Problems come in two ways: 1) when it is my explicit intention to communicate something to others as a fact about the world, and if I somehow fake this fact. 2) if I try to communicate my intention honestly, but others twist or manipulate the material they have taken from me, and do so without my authorization. This latter appears to be the case with the photogrtaph of Cheney.

 

[janessa]

I suggest you use the re size image feature of whatever program you have. Usually in the Image or Edit menu, this will reduce the size of the picture without requiring cropping. You can do something as simple as set the unit of measure to inches, leave it in pixels or set it to percent and reduce the photo. This option depending on the program will tell you the size of the file before resizing, and if it doesn't clicking file - image property, or something like that should tell you what size your photo is.

 

[Q.G.]

Cropping isn't resizing, resizing not cropping.

You crop to change the image content.

Which - as has been said - is not lying anymore than deciding what to include when you are framing the picture before taking it.

 

[blansky]

I believe you have to define the photography. If it is news or editorial it has to be of a certain standard. In the Cheney example the editor took the photograph "out of context". It would be the same if you took words a person says out of context.

If I said "raping women is not much of a crime in countries that treat women as chattel and keeps them uneducated and controlled"

And you wrote an article saying that I said, "raping women is not much of a crime". You have obviously changed the intent of what I said.

As much as I dislike Cheney, using the family BBQ as a illustration for torture should offend people. However the news media does much the same thing when it uses pictures of people they don't support that shows them in unflattering ways.

IS it wrong. Yes.

As for other types of photography cropping, in the darkroom is no different than cropping in the camera, using location, lenses or whatever. It's just a tool the photographer uses to show his vision.

Michael

 

[haris]

If croping change reality of photographed scene, yes it is lying. If does not it is just interpretation or maybe focusing (drawing attantion) on important part of scene. There are video clips on Al-Jazeera television where they show part of photograph and then zooming out to show whole photograph, playing with exactly same question OP asked and trying to say they don't "crop" the truth (they show whole truth), and maybe trying to say "Don't belive everything you see in media, maybe showed image (told news) was "cropped" like we showed here".

But, if you go to extreme, every photograph is croping from whole. Whenever you take photograph there is something behing, above, under... which you cropped out from your surrounding.

 

[Q.G.]

If I said "raping women is not much of a crime in countries that treat women as chattel and keeps them uneducated and controlled"

... You perhaps left out who knows what, which might do who knows what to change how we understand what you are saying.

If cropping is lying. Taking a photograph is lying too.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Declaring a photograph to be the truth is lying.
Expecting a photograph to show the truth is naive.

 

[Rudeofus]

Expecting a photograph to show the truth is naive.

Call me naive, but I expect even more: a photograph should represent or quote the truth. IMHO blansky hit the nail. If you frame/crop/alter an image such that it suggests a different reality you misinform the viewer of that image, just like taking a quote out of context might misrepresent the original speaker.

As far as the Chenney image goes: does the original image represent the whole truth? He may have been a nice cozy guy at home but that's not how he was perceived by the general public. Reminds me of images of ruthless dictators caressing little children while 2 blocks away their henchmen tortured and killed anyone who spoke up against them. The Chenney image as shown by Newsweek obviously alters the meaning of the original image, yet it represents the perception most folks have of Chenney much better than the original image ever did.

 

[Q.G.]

Call me naive, but I expect even more: a photograph should represent or quote the truth. IMHO blansky hit the nail. If you frame/crop/alter an image such that it suggests a different reality you misinform the viewer of that image, just like taking a quote out of context might misrepresent the original speaker.

Taking a photo is the same as taking a quote out of context.
Changing the framing once again (you decide what does and what does not go in the frame first when you take the picture) does nothing to add to or take away from that.

Besides, where and what is that reality, that truth which the cropping-is-lying theory supposes?

It's nowhere, nothing. All there is ever, is a someone's take on it.

You may not disagree. And if you indeed do disagree, you're just lying...
Both about disagreeing and about what the truth is supposed to be.

 

[viridari]

I think the real injustice here is that the photographer's work was substantially altered and then published without the informed consent of the photographer (copyright holder). The man's name gets published with his photographs, and he'd probably like to not have his reputation butchered like his photos have been.

 

[Willie Jan]

Photographs do not lie. Nor do they tell the truth.

I see some connections with politics.