Is film better for the truth?

[StevieB]

The photograph is just a photography. The use of it may be deceptive.

Right and it's a lie.
History is written by the winners

 

[Sirius Glass]

The photograph is just a photography. The use of it may be deceptive.

Correct. Is it unethical to use it for deception without labeling it as such?

 

[StevieB]

I agree, every negative and photographic print made should have a label that specifically states ALL things done that manipulated, added and removed things.

Placement of tripod or photographer's feet
Exact Film type
Lens focal length and angle of view
Filtration
Shutter speed and reciprocity calculations
Aperture
Developer used, Dilution and time
Developing method (rotary processor, deep or small tank open tray )
Agitation and if someone asks for it a small video clip showing how person agitated the film because no 2 people agitate the same
Toning if applicable
Retouching if applicable (fluids, leads, etching knife) if applicable
Enlarger and Light source type
Lens
Filtration
Aperture
Developer type and Dilution
TIme
Burning and Dodging Map
Agitation and if someone asks for it a small video clip showing how a person agitated the print because no 2 people agitate the same
Bleaching and Toning if applicable
Spotting

It is going to be a long label but it is needed so people can't lie about their photographs having no manipulation, things removed, added, and enhanced from and to their images won't lie and say they were "straight" photographs

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I agree, every negative and photographic print made should have a label that specifically states ALL things done that manipulated, added and removed things.

Placement of tripod or photographer's feet
Exact Film type
Lens focal length and angle of view
Filtration
Shutter speed and reciprocity calculations
Aperture
Developer used, Dilution and time
Developing method (rotary processor, deep or small tank open tray )
Agitation and if someone asks for it a small video clip showing how person agitated the film because no 2 people agitate the same
Toning if applicable
Retouching if applicable (fluids, leads, etching knife) if applicable
Enlarger and Light source type
Lens
Filtration
Aperture
Developer type and Dilution
TIme
Burning and Dodging Map
Agitation and if someone asks for it a small video clip showing how a person agitated the print because no 2 people agitate the same
Bleaching and Toning if applicable
Spotting

It is going to be a long label but it is needed so people can't lie about their photographs having no manipulation, things removed, added, and enhanced from and to their images won't lie and say they were "straight" photographs

.
For the most part, these are things that have to be done to get a picture developed and printed properly or the exposure adjusted to make up for deficiencies in the camera and film.

More importantly, you ignored the main issues that are the most deceptive:- Cloning things in and out of the photo and setting up the picture with actors and props. Add to that false captions and text by the writer purporting the associate photo to mean what it didn't really capture.

 

[StevieB]

The most deceptive practices you speak about are nearly 200 years old nothing new. War correspondent photographs from the 19th Century demonstrate this as well. Adding and subtracting objects ( cannon balls as well as dead soldiers ) into and out of the field of view. Photoshop has been around for almost 200 years. Even Abraham Lincoln's famous portrait was a cut and paste job.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The most deceptive practices you speak about are nearly 200 years old nothing new. War correspondent photographs from the 19th Century demonstrate this as well. Adding and subtracting objects ( cannon balls as well as dead soldiers ) into and out of the field of view. Photoshop has been around for almost 200 years. Even Abraham Lincoln's famous portrait was a cut and paste job.

People have deceived since Adam blamed Eve for him eating the apple. What's your point? Do you think it's OK to go around lying to each other?

 

[StevieB]

People have deceived since Adam blamed Eve for him eating the apple. What's your point? Do you think it's OK to go around lying to each other?

My point is neither are trustworthy and to believe that somehow film negatives and photographic prints are somehow trustworthy is being a bit naive. I don't think lying is good but people lie to eachother all the time.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

My point is neither are trustworthy and to believe that somehow film negatives and photographic prints are somehow trustworthy is being a bit naive. I don't think lying is good but people lie to eachother all the time.

But people have traditionally trusted photos. Look how people reacted to the poor in Migrant Mother. It was used to get hearts to ache and provide relief to the poor in the dust bowl. Even today. Look at the photos of the dead civilians "murdered" in Ukraine. The whole world is upset. Such is the power of photographs to propagandize. It only works because for the most part, people trust they're telling the truth. BUt the photos could have been staged just like the Migrant Mother and US Civil War photos. Just like her thumb was removed, maybe the Ukrainians tied the hands of dead people who were just killed in bombings, not deliberately murdered, to make Russians look like killers. Who proves the photo one way or the other? (PS I'm not taking a side on the issue. I'm just trying to make a point about the efficacy of photographs and the trust people put in them.)

 

[Sirius Glass]

The most deceptive practices you speak about are nearly 200 years old nothing new. War correspondent photographs from the 19th Century demonstrate this as well. Adding and subtracting objects ( cannon balls as well as dead soldiers ) into and out of the field of view. Photoshop has been around for almost 200 years. Even Abraham Lincoln's famous portrait was a cut and paste job.

That was never the discussion. The discussion is that because something, in this case adding and subtracting objects, was done in the past, does not justify doing it now? Is it ethical? Should there be boundaries or limits? Do such practices hurt the public's perception of photography?

 

[StevieB]

But people have traditionally trusted photos. Look how people reacted to the poor in Migrant Mother. It was used to get hearts to ache and provide relief to the poor in the dust bowl. Even today. Look at the photos of the dead civilians "murdered" in Ukraine. The whole world is upset. Such is the power of photographs to propagandize. It only works because for the most part, people trust they're telling the truth. BUt the photos could have been staged just like the Migrant Mother and US Civil War photos. Just like her thumb was removed, maybe the Ukrainians tied the hands of dead people who were just killed in bombings, not deliberately murdered, to make Russians look like killers. Who proves the photo one way or the other? (PS I'm not taking a side on the issue. I'm just trying to make a point about the efficacy of photographs and the trust people put in them.)

I do not believe people have traditionally trusted photographs I think people have known from the beginning photography has been used to lie. I know what Migrant Mother was used for and it was a con job as I said, it was not truthfu. If she and her laughing kids were photographed in the 21st century might have been called "sympathy actors" buy people that say that sort of stuff and there would have been some people who would have pointed everything out on some social media network to point out the public was manipulated by the government and its propagandist photographers. I don't believe that, I think it's heartbreaking what she and her family and millions of people had to live through. I think people WANT to. believe photographs, they WANT to believe they are memories and whatever other things they attribute to them but they are fictitious and have been from the beginning.

That was never the discussion. The discussion is that because something, in this case adding and subtracting objects, was done in the past, does not justify doing it now? Is it ethical? Should there be boundaries or limits? Do such practices hurt the public's perception of photography?

It doesn't matter. The public doesn't care and hasn't from the beginning. There should be no boundaries or limits and it has nothing to do with ethics. It has to do with your personal tastes and your sense of morality that you are imposing on others because you don't like manipulated photographs probably because you think it's "easy with photoshop" which is a myth because if you have ever done photoshop you would realize it is harder than darkroom work.

Regarding the label of truthfulness I hope you do make a label and list all the things I wrote previously because they are all large and small manipulations done to both the negative and print, you are just as guilty as a photoshop user..

 

[Don_ih]

Well, yeah.

Right and it's a lie.

Correct. Is it unethical to use it for deception without labeling it as such?

I stated that a photograph is just a photograph to set a distinction that is being brutally ignored in the majority of comments here. A photo is a thing. Truth is a value. A thing cannot be either true nor false. A value involves a "something valued" and the context in which it is thus valued. "This is an accurate photograph" states that a the photo, in current estimation, represents its subject faithfully - known by way of comparison. In the instance of a purposeful deception, a photograph is stated to be faithful to an audience which cannot or will not check the faithfulness of the representation against the purported subject of the photo. Do you see how quickly all of that switches from being about a straightforward thing to being about what some person or people say? Even the subject of the photo becomes debatable.

To say "that photo is a lie" is allegorical only. The photo is a photo. Just like iron pyrite is not "a lie" for not being gold, a photo is not a lie for not being what you think it is.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Our society can’t even keep guns from criminals under a restraining order prohibiting them from possessing a firearm, and then they go on and do a mass killing. You think people care about truth in photography? We have bigger issues to deal with. There never has been total truth in photography. I can light a product on my table so as to enhance the viewers direction where I want it to go. And that is just controlling light direction. There is so much more needed to produce a sterile photograph. It just does not exist.

I love looking at photography. I love helping people new to the field learn the tools. I enjoy watching them mature and what they can come up with. Every student I have taught that went on to make it in their own way in photography, stayed with it until they figured out how to use their tools. If you took the tools away, you might get closer to someone’s idea of straight photography with one camera, one lens and automatic film processing. But, once that straight negative is in a person’s hands, their idea of what they want to project in that photo begins. Pass that negative on to the next person, be it an art director, news editor or another hobby printer and then the image evolves. No one will ever take the time or feel the necessity to explain why they presented the photo the way they have, it is not important to them. If it is important to you, well that is wonderful. You have a certain necessity for morals in photos that most people do not give a hoot about. If someone wants to know what gear, they assume the gear is responsible for the photo and not necessarily the photographer, etc.

I hate to shed light on a great truth here, but people do not want to know the truth all the time. If they know the truth about something that might make them have to do something about it, we’ll they just do not want to know. Have fun with photography, your photography.

I do not believe people have traditionally trusted photographs I think people have known from the beginning photography has been used to lie. I know what Migrant Mother was used for and it was a con job as I said, it was not truthfu. If she and her laughing kids were photographed in the 21st century might have been called "sympathy actors" buy people that say that sort of stuff and there would have been some people who would have pointed everything out on some social media network to point out the public was manipulated by the government and its propagandist photographers. I don't believe that, I think it's heartbreaking what she and her family and millions of people had to live through. I think people WANT to. believe photographs, they WANT to believe they are memories and whatever other things they attribute to them but they are fictitious and have been from the beginning.

It doesn't matter. The public doesn't care and hasn't from the beginning. There should be no boundaries or limits and it has nothing to do with ethics. It has to do with your personal tastes and your sense of morality that you are imposing on others because you don't like manipulated photographs probably because you think it's "easy with photoshop" which is a myth because if you have ever done photoshop you would realize it is harder than darkroom work.

Regarding the label of truthfulness I hope you do make a label and list all the things I wrote previously because they are all large and small manipulations done to both the negative and print, you are just as guilty as a photoshop user..

Can't there be different standards between journalistic and documentary photos, and fine art photos?

 

[StevieB]

I stated that a photograph is just a photograph to set a distinction that is being brutally ignored in the majority of comments here. A photo is a thing. Truth is a value.

You are right, sorry for not seeing your post!

Can't there be different standards between journalistic and documentary photos, and fine art photos?

Why is that even necessary? There is no need to for moralistic standards set by you and Mr Glass.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You are right, sorry for not seeing your post!

Why is that even necessary? There is no need to for moralistic standards set by you and Mr Glass.

Of course there's a need for standards in journalism including photographs. What value is there to read false news or see phony pictures? Many newspapers have these standards to protect their reputation as well. They won't publish photos that have been cloned or objects removed. Only general exposure and cropping are allowed.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Of course there's a need for standards in journalism including photographs. What value is there to read false news or see phony pictures? Many newspapers have these standards to protect their reputation as well. They won't publish photos that have been cloned or objects removed. Only general exposure and cropping are allowed.

And so I am no alone.

 

[StevieB]

Of course there's a need for standards in journalism including photographs. What value is there to read false news or see phony pictures? Many newspapers have these standards to protect their reputation as well. They won't publish photos that have been cloned or objects removed. Only general exposure and cropping are allowed.

Right, so why are you re-inventing this wheel for this website? Will only photographs that you and Mr Glass stamp "appropriate and truthful" be permitted? Will selenium toning a negative or long shutter speeds be permitted ?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Right, so why are you re-inventing this wheel for this website? Will only photographs that you and Mr Glass stamp "appropriate and truthful" be permitted? Will selenium toning a negative or long shutter speeds be permitted ?

I have no control over what's posted on the website. No one is stopping you or anyone else from posting whatever pictures you want. Additionally, I like toned pictures and have myself shot photos with long shutter speeds.

I was discussing the value of photographs that reflect more realistically what was shot, especially in photojournalism and documentary. Like it or not, Photoshop has added to the suspicion many viewers have of photos' truthfulness.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It’s all social media today.

Maybe because as an older group of photographers (I am closing in on retirement in 2025) we remember when … or how it use to be. People have evolved and so does whatever they produce. When we did not have the communication technology we have today, things were more innocent or I remember them that way. I stay grounded with my favorite photographers and their work through their books, but I can sometimes spot a retouch in a photo where others cannot. To me, it really has been a lot about the craftsmanship behind the message; if they get their intended meaning across in an image I am okay with that regardless how they did it. There has never been a purist photographer I know of. If they are printed in books or hanging on a museum wall, it was prepared for public view.

You can call it social media. But that doesn't change the fact that people trust news a lot less today. Photoshop has contributed to that on the photo end.

 

[StevieB]

I have no control over what's posted on the website. No one is stopping you or anyone else from posting whatever pictures you want. Additionally, I like toned pictures and have myself shot photos with long shutter speeds.

I was discussing the value of photographs that reflect more realistically what was shot, especially in photojournalism and documentary. Like it or not, Photoshop has added to the suspicion many viewers have of photos' truthfulness.

that's good I wasn't sure if new rules were being made up on the spot that would prohibit people from posting images you and Mr Glass disapproved of. As detailed previously in this thread there has been photographs made previous to photo shop where items were large and small items added and removed from the images, even the president of the United States was cut and pasted into someone else's photograph. The photographs I mention were not "art photos" but photojournalism and documentary photographs. This "problem" you are concerned about has. been around for a long time. I don't really think it matters. Print media long before the internet allowed people to say and do whatever they want, it's the same now, you can decide who you believe without enforcing your moralistic photographic code on the rest of us.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Photoshop happened because of the digital evolution. The people I hear complaining about Photoshop do not use it. I have used Photoshop since 1988 and taught it in the classroom and I still am an amateur using it. Maybe I am better than a newbie, but I do not have the time to learn how to use it as an illustration program as I feel a lot of non-Photoshop users think it is.

The people I know that do not trust the news media have said it is because the news industry has evolved into a Hollywood hack. They select what they want you to believe. Jump channels and you get sometimes news the other station does not report. Seriously we have a possible WWIII in the making and the biggest new story has been about a slap from entertainers? You expect a society that is this sick to produce the truth in news? We may be imploding from the center because something is terribly wrong IMO.

I will resign from this thread now.
Thank you to all participants for sharing your thoughts, but my head is hurting,

Best,
Darr

Don't go. You're adding a lot to this discussion. I agree they're Hollywood hacks. The problem is besides words, they present false news with photos that lie to the public. Why should we expect them to be honest with photos when they're dishonest when they use words?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

that's good I wasn't sure if new rules were being made up on the spot that would prohibit people from posting images you and Mr Glass disapproved of. As detailed previously in this thread there has been photographs made previous to photo shop where items were large and small items added and removed from the images, even the president of the United States was cut and pasted into someone else's photograph. The photographs I mention were not "art photos" but photojournalism and documentary photographs. This "problem" you are concerned about has. been around for a long time. I don't really think it matters. Print media long before the internet allowed people to say and do whatever they want, it's the same now, you can decide who you believe without enforcing your moralistic photographic code on the rest of us.

You left the part out of one of my posts when I said that reputable news media have their own standards about photos. Cloning, adding and removing items in a photo, are forbidden. A reporter could get fired if they do that. I'm not making those rules up.

 

[StevieB]

You left the part out of one of my posts when I said that reputable news media have their own standards about photos. Cloning, adding and removing items in a photo, are forbidden. A reporter could get fired if they do that. I'm not making those rules up.

Yes it is a sad that photographers are not able to post absurdist collages presented as news and more people to believe mystical imagery. Fantastical images about alligators waterskiing behind a low flying helicopter is better than the current sadness being published today.

I agree, every negative and photographic print made should have a label that specifically states ALL things done that manipulated, added and removed things.

Placement of tripod or photographer's feet
Exact Film type
Lens focal length and angle of view
Filtration
Shutter speed and reciprocity calculations
Aperture
Developer used, Dilution and time
Developing method (rotary processor, deep or small tank open tray )
Agitation and if someone asks for it a small video clip showing how person agitated the film because no 2 people agitate the same
Toning if applicable
Retouching if applicable (fluids, leads, etching knife) if applicable
Enlarger and Light source type
Lens
Filtration
Aperture
Developer type and Dilution
TIme
Burning and Dodging Map
Agitation and if someone asks for it a small video clip showing how a person agitated the print because no 2 people agitate the same
Bleaching and Toning if applicable
Spotting

In this painful list I forgot to in the exact film type orthochromatic, panorthochromatic or panchromatic which palette of colors the Fuji Green super saturated saturated world view or the muted cyan, bluish pseudo natural Kodak world view or the expired Lomo world view and if the film and papers were expired and what environmental conditions they sustained.


I mean no disrespect by this post.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Finally the truth! At 2:42 a man with a Hasselblad and the right spirit! "We do not crop! We do not manipulate!"

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Finally the truth! At 2:42 a man with a Hasselblad and the right spirit! "We do not crop! We do not manipulate!"

A while back I suggested this because that's where we're going. Why replace only the sky? Replace the ground at the same time. We're almost there. In fact, why buy a camera at all, or film or memory cards. Save on gas. Pour yourself a cup of coffee, and do your photography at your desk in your pajamas. All we need is an image and call in photography anyway.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A while back I suggested this because that's where we're going. Why replace only the sky? Replace the ground at the same time. We're almost there. In fact, why buy a camera at all, or film or memory cards. Save on gas. Pour yourself a cup of coffee, and do your photography at your desk in your pajamas. All we need is an image and call in photography anyway.

One can even add or remove cabooses.