What would have happened if we found out at the time that the photo was modified? Some people would have exclaimed, "FAKE!". Would it have had the same effect on opinion in the country?
If it were up to me, I would have made the alteration and disclosed the fact that I did - stating that the change had been made for the purposes of clarity, and that the original negative is available if required.
Except your original idea, dodging the post, really would have been good enough. Cut that black back to a medium grey and it would just as good as gone - but still there, in terms of unaltered content.
That is the alteration that I would have made in a journalistic or documentation context - I should have been more clear.
In any other context, I would have leaned toward deletion.
removing something physical from deep inside the frame, whether for context or aesthetics, that’s not my definition of straight” photography
To Pieter12: I believe it altered the truth because there is one less fence post. Something was erased, something physical, beyond a piece of dust or dumb processing artifact or defect on the negative… Next time remove one squirrel from the field of a baseball playoff series image, a cannon from a civil war battlefield image, or one dugout or errant branch in the way from one of those UkrainIan drone grenade drop kill videos.
The removal of the fence post is the canary in the coal mine because its removal is substantial/heavy (to me) as I now question EVERYTHING in it and question every part of the photograph as to what else was manipulated. Therefore, yes, to me, its truth has changed all due to the deliberate conscious affirmative removal of one physical element which now no longer exists in that record of a life event. Cropping, that’s a whole other nut, but removing something physical from deep inside the frame, whether for context or aesthetics, that’s not my definition of straight” photography.
Crap photograph cause there’s a stick embedded in your head? Suck it up world, that’s exactly what it looked like through the lens onto the film when the photo was taken. Yeah, I’m stingy!
Crap photograph cause there’s a stick embedded in your head?
Real truth does not exist, just points of view.
I've been pondering this question for a while, and it came to mind again today when I saw the winning photographs in the recently held Members Juried Exhibition at the Center for Photographic Art in Carmel, CA.
Only a small fraction of the winning photographs are what I would consider straight photography - and by that I mean an un-manipulated photograph taken of a real scene. I know that the 'un-manipulated' part of that definition could be controversial (I don't include things like contrast adjustment, burning/dodging here), but I think you'll know what I mean when you see the winning photographs - in some cases it's difficult to tell if the image actually started out as a photograph taken with a camera:
Juried Exhibition Winners
I've noticed a similar thing when looking at other recent juried photo contests, photo books, etc. It seems that straight photographs, taken by going out into the real world, happening upon interesting things and capturing them with a camera, may be dead/dying.
Maybe I'm too narrow-minded or not creative enough, but the majority of the photographs I see at the included link have little interest to me. I still favor film too, so I'm probably just a dinosaur who's out of touch with current photographic trends...
You'll notice I said I agree that such photos shouldn't be altered.
And whoever altered the photo thought it was justified - and a clean enough job that fooled the editors of major publications.
And in this instance, that this photo is not straight does not make it deceptive. As Alex said (correcting what I said above), the publishers would have wanted the unaltered photo. But it turns out the majority of people saw the modified one and were shocked at what it depicted.
That is the alteration that I would have made in a journalistic or documentation context - I should have been more clear.
In any other context, I would have leaned toward deletion (EDIT: and not bothered with disclosing the change).
How do you know If the fence post was there in the first place? Because you saw a photo? Maybe that is the one that was manipulated. Real truth does not exist, just points of view.
35 years ago, on a lark instigated by my sister after I broke up with my girlfriend, I placed a personal ad in New York Magazine in the dating section. There was no social media online back them. This was a way for people to meet. So I got about 200 letters at least half with pictures which made it somewhat easier to decide who you might want to call and date. The twentieth girl I dated eventually became my current wife of thirty years. Go figure.Photographic images have been altered for decades and technology has just made it easier. Previously, if a model had a flaw, it was airbrushed now it's Photoshopped. Right or wrong, there always has been and aways will be some level of manipulation in photography. From the choice of lens or the position of the camera. We would all like to accept the image we are viewing is a true representation of the scene but what is there is how the photographer wanted us to see it. I have mentioned this before but it's worth repeating, when there was a papal visit to Philadelphia, PA a photo in one of the local news outlets was of onlookers lined up along the travel route. Just about everyone along the fence had a camera or a phone except for one woman who simply looked on to capture the scene in her memory.
35 years ago, on a lark instigated by my sister after I broke up with my girlfriend, I placed a personal ad in New York Magazine in the dating section. There was no social media online back them. This was a way for people to meet. So I got about 200 letters at least half with pictures which made it somewhat easier to decide who you might want to call and date. The twentieth girl I dated eventually became my current wife of thirty years. Go figure.
She had enclosed a photo of herself that had been cut vertically through the picture so only she remained in it. There obviously was some person who was standing next to her in the part of the picture cut out. I assumed it was an ex-boyfriend. But I was attracted to her and didn't want to get too inquisitive. So I kept my mouth shut. Later on I found out it was her girlfriend in the picture. My wife told me she didn't want me to mistake her girlfriend for her. So now I'm thinking. Was that a straight photo? Dishonest? Altered? Improved? Clarified?
That’s very much how I met my wife, thirty eight years ago. I knew absolutely no one when I moved to Portland. Answered a personal ad in one of the alt weekly papers. The photo was her in a mirror. We exchanged letters and talked on the phone and eventually met after about a month. We sat down for a chat and never stopped. It could have been a wonky mirror but it worked.
Perfect, Don. I could imagine the caption; "National Guard spears peacenik student protesting the Vietnam War."
Why stop at medium gray? Maybe the next guy figures light gray is acceptable. What the heck. Taking it out completely is almast the same as light gray. "Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we start to deceive".
Don: You should have left it becasue it showed just how easily an altered picture can totally take on another meaning especially with the "right" caption. That's why editing is such a no-no with documentary shots.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?