Is straight photography dead?

[Alan Edward Klein]

Now that you show it, I've seen it before. There was justification for removing the pole, whoever did it, because it's sticking directly out of the centre of her head. It's not an important element - it may actually confuse some people who see the photo, who might think she has that expression because she has been impaled by that pole. So the pole detracts from the photo's ability to convey the situation. Like Matt said, there was no intention to misrepresent anything, so it's not a dishonest manipulation.

There's a bit too much equating "straight" with "good, honest, true" and "manipulated" with "bad, deceptive, false".

The pole should have been left because it is such an important news document. Once you start modifying the facts, it creates doubt in the minds of many. What else was changed that hasn't been revealed? Why should we trust the picture at all?

Today, many news outlets would fire the photographer for that modification because they know once the media goes down that path, people stop trusting them in all matters.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If a photo is used to imply something that's not true in and advertisement, then the ad is false. The photo, however, could be completely true. I could make an ad with a photo of the Statue of Liberty and a line saying, "Visit Niagara Falls! See The Statue of Liberty!" -- that implies something that just isn't true. But the photo is just a photo.

False advertising is advertising - not a photo.

If the photo is used in a false context, then it is false. Period. You can't put lipstick on a pig. Otherwise, you're just playing word games. If the photographer knew his photo was being used that way along with the phony text, then both the ad writer and the photographer would be found guilty of deception and have to pay the fine.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I respectfully disagree and believe the publication of the Kent State photo without the pole centered to her head was a dishonest and misleading manipulation. The pole was there, too bad for the student photographer, and too bad for the image - journalism lost a fact w such manipulation. Yes, it’s only a pole.

Everyone including the caveman understands these are series fence posts, knows the reason for her anguish, that it was taken at a minutely less-than-ideal angle, and wouldn’t confuse or criticise the publishing of a scene for it-as-it-appeared through the lens. So why not remove some blood. Why not add some pooled blood. If one student shown had been smiling, for any reason, ought the smile be changed, blended out of focus, or the man himself be entirely disappeared from the image? Maybe that pole was important for some indeterminate reason involving something to do with the event itself. Did it hinder the view of a National Guard soldier seeing the handkerchef rag believing it was a gun? Why not remove all poles. Why not enhance the handkerchef rag or revolver or what is it on the ground to help the viewer immediately understand what it is? Or just remove the handkerchef rag completely? If to publish for fact I wouldn’t agree to wholesale remove or add any element to prettify the image. What else was removed - who now really knows. So what can you trust... a sliding the slope to bias and lie. I understand there are shades to everything (I.e., crop) but removing something constrained within the image is too much.

As an exercise, I apologize to Don Heisz above with his quote. It’s re-quoted above in my post. But you see, I changed a very small insignificant element to his writing by altering and manipulating it - I replaced Don’s portion “because she has been impaled by that pole” because I found it a little too shocking and jarring to consider the very idea someone may have been impaled by a pole. So I replaced it with “because she has been growing that pole out from her head since her early childhood.” I find my selection just a bit easier on the mind, it‘s cleaned up a little, sterilized, less messy, a less distracting quote, to my editorial sensibility, and I hope that’s okay to the public and Mr. Heisz who might believe it‘s an inconsequential manipulation. Would the moderator please remove any recordation of Mr. Heisz’ post to replace his with mine forevermore? My manipulation is inconsequential and I’m not trying to misrepresent anything of any significance?

You beat me to it.

 

[Don_ih]

I replaced Don’s portion “because she has been impaled by that pole” because I found it a little too shocking and jarring to consider the very idea someone may have been impaled by a pole. So I replaced it with “because she has been growing that pole out from her head since her early childhood.”

That works just as well as what I said, so I don't care if it's amended for all eternity. It makes the same point - more so, actually, because it emphasizes the absurdity.

I agree with what @Alan Edward Klein said "Once you start modifying the facts, it creates doubt in the minds of many. What else was changed that hasn't been revealed? Why should we trust the picture at all?" But that doesn't change the fact that the editing was, from the point of view of those who published the edited photo, justified. They may not have been aware that a world where the basic content of a photo was not to be trusted was a mere few decades away. As such, you can't completely identify with their concerns - although I imagine it was mostly to "clean" a distraction from the photo. In their opinion, they kept the essential, basic elements of the photo intact - they probably believed that they further emphasized those elements.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That works just as well as what I said, so I don't care if it's amended for all eternity. It makes the same point - more so, actually, because it emphasizes the absurdity.

I agree with what @Alan Edward Klein said "Once you start modifying the facts, it creates doubt in the minds of many. What else was changed that hasn't been revealed? Why should we trust the picture at all?" But that doesn't change the fact that the editing was, from the point of view of those who published the edited photo, justified. They may not have been aware that a world where the basic content of a photo was not to be trusted was a mere few decades away. As such, you can't completely identify with their concerns - although I imagine it was mostly to "clean" a distraction from the photo. In their opinion, they kept the essential, basic elements of the photo intact - they probably believed that they further emphasized those elements.

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?

I think we're in a better place when news outlets stop these kind of edits. Generally, it's bad policy to allow edits and weakens truth at a time when so much of the written and spoken news can't be relied on. If we also fake news photography to make a "better" point, how does that help us understand the world better and more honestly?

 

[Pieter12]

MY example covers what you're referring to. If I ask my wife to stand in front of a statue to show others at home that we visited Paris and actually saw the statue, that's not deception. But if I cloned her into a picture of the statue and never visited Paris, that would be deception. Most people can figure out the difference between truth and deception. It's not very hard.

If you put your wife in a photo of somewhere she hasn’t been, no one cares. People tell tall tales all the time.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If you put your wife in a photo of somewhere she hasn’t been, no one cares. People tell tall tales all the time.

Hey that's a great idea. Think of all the money I could save on air fare to Paris?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Wait till someone confronts you with both a fake photo and fake voice on the phone, or over the internet, of your wife or daughter allegedly kidnapped and held for ransom. It's already happening, and on significant scale. And the ability of this for sake of news and political manipulation? - already epidemic.

This kind of problem is nothing new, but getting way more sophisticated and commonplace. An aside I'm also worried about is when there's a generation who no longer cares about the preservation of beautiful natural areas because they've grown up with concocted visual substitutes for that. All of our Park districts in this part of the world - Regional, State, and Natonal - are highly aware of that risk, so have put in place programs to encourage younger generations to get out and see things for themselves, with or without cameras (some venues do prohibit cell phone use or other e-distractions in these outdoor adventure settings).

That strategy is working to a degree, especially locally, but I don't know on how widespread a scale. Lardassophography or faux nature photography, desktop manipulating imagery instead of actually seeing it for oneself, has its own momentum, and it makes me sick.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Wait till someone confronts you with both a fake photo and fake voice on the phone, or over the internet, of your wife or daughter allegedly kidnapped and held for ransom. It's already happening, and on significant scale. And the ability of this for sake of news and political manipulation? - already epidemic.

This kind of problem is nothing new, but getting way more sophisticated and commonplace. An aside I'm also worried about is when there's a generation who no longer cares about the preservation of beautiful natural areas because they've grown up with concocted visual substitutes for that. All of our Park districts in this part of the world - Regional, State, and Natonal - are highly aware of that risk, so have put in place programs to encourage younger generations to get out and see things for themselves, with or without cameras (some venues do prohibit cell phone use or other e-distractions in these outdoor adventure settings).

That strategy is working to a degree, especially locally, but I don't know on how widespread a scale. Lardassophography or faux nature photography, desktop manipulating imagery instead of actually seeing it for oneself, has its own momentum, and it makes me sick.

I see that my NJ and NYS environmental conservation groups and government entities have similar children's programs both on state and county levels. Even local communities have similar activities. You didn't mention Meta where you can put on a headset and make believe you're walking around a real park.

But I still think people want to get away and experience the real thing, swimming, walking, hiking, photography, skiing, cross country, biking, etc. Meta and these other "fake" inventions might make people wanting to actually get out more to see the real thing. Parks have never been so crowded as you and others here have complained about. So let;s look on the positive side. After all it was photography that made nationalization and protection of parks more acceptable even though people didn;t yet go. AI is just an extension of photography and computers.

 

[madNbad]

Is straight photography dead?​

After ten pages of discussion, maybe not.

 

[Rrrgcy]

That works just as well as what I said, so I don't care if it's amended for all eternity. It makes the same point - more so, actually, because it emphasizes the absurdity.

I agree with what @Alan Edward Klein said "Once you start modifying the facts, it creates doubt in the minds of many. What else was changed that hasn't been revealed? Why should we trust the picture at all?" But that doesn't change the fact that the editing was, from the point of view of those who published the edited photo, justified. They may not have been aware that a world where the basic content of a photo was not to be trusted was a mere few decades away. As such, you can't completely identify with their concerns - although I imagine it was mostly to "clean" a distraction from the photo. In their opinion, they kept the essential, basic elements of the photo intact - they probably believed that they further emphasized those elements.

That works just as well as what I said, so I don't care if it's amended for all eternity. It makes the same point - more so, actually, because it emphasizes the absurdity.

I agree with what @Alan Edward Klein said "Once you start modifying the facts, it creates doubt in the minds of many. What else was changed that hasn't been revealed? Why should we trust the picture at all?" But that doesn't change the fact that the editing was, from the point of view of those who published the edited photo, justified. They may not have been aware that a world where the basic content of a photo was not to be trusted was a mere few decades away. As such, you can't completely identify with their concerns - although I imagine it was mostly to "clean" a distraction from the photo. In their opinion, they kept the essential, basic elements of the photo intact - they probably believed that they further emphasized those elements.

Your informing me my alteration of your words is something you not care about is precisely the analogy to the student photographer of Kent State who may (probably) not have cared his image was altered. You said you don’t even care if it (my replacement of a part of your sentence) were amended for all eternity because ”it makes the same point - more so, actually, because it emphasizes the absurdity“ and it’s justified. I wonder who is granted that responsibility to make a call about when altering images are justified. Those working for a Time, Life, etc. all knew about the long history of and ramifications to photo manipulation and it’s likely there was a discussion considering it during the (brief as it may have been) process of deciding to erase the pole. Maybe the fellow adjacent with the shaggy hair covering his face suffered manipulation to cover-up his identity by shielding his face for some political purpose, who is to know given the image was already manipulated.

I guess it’s apparent there are varying standards to what is acceptable in altering the original. I’ll ask the moderator not forever amend your quote to my editing because I respect your originality, creativity, whether with bugs or not, and because your creation deserves to earmark the facts using your words as you believe them, much as what was seen in the original student photograph of the Kent State shooting. As a result of eliminating what’s deemed aesthetically offensive, I consider the altered image beginning to straddle a line approaching interpretation or even art

 

[Alex Benjamin]

that doesn't change the fact that the editing was, from the point of view of those who published the edited photo, justified

Important to note here that those who published the photo, Time, People, and others, were not aware of the change. The editing was done early 70s, nobody knows by whom. The change became known years, if not decades, later, when a print or copy of the original resurfaced. One of the news outlets (can't remember which) that published the altered print in the 70s issued an apology in the mid-90s.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Those working for a Time, Life, etc. all knew about the long history of and ramifications to photo manipulation and it’s likely there was a discussion considering it during the (brief as it may have been) process of deciding to erase the pole.

It wasn't their decision. They didn't know. Please read my post above.

These magazines had strict rules about that. W. Eugene Smith's altered photo of Schweitzer was rejected because of that, which pushed him to leave the magazine in anger and protest.

the student photographer of Kent State who may (probably) not have cared his image was altered.

In absence of evidence, the photographer's feelings about this should not be made subject to hypothesis. He may not have cared, he might have been pissed. We just don't know. Implying one over the other is quite unfair to him.

 

[logan2z]

Is straight photography dead?​

After ten pages of discussion, maybe not.

Well, at least the debate about whether or not it is dead is not dead.

 

[MattKing]

I don't know whether I would have removed the fence post, but I probably would have dodged it a bit to help separate it, in the background, from the dark hair of the person in the foreground.
In real life, of course, our eyes and brain would have no problem differentiating between the two.
But when we resort to depicting the event using a two dimensional black and white medium, the medium itself introduces a distortion to the depiction of that event.
My dodging of the post would be aimed at decreasing that distortion. It would have the effect of making the result closer to the original reality. Does this mean the result - including the dodging - would be even more "straight"?

 

[Pieter12]

Wait till someone confronts you with both a fake photo and fake voice on the phone, or over the internet, of your wife or daughter allegedly kidnapped and held for ransom. It's already happening, and on significant scale. And the ability of this for sake of news and political manipulation? - already epidemic.

This kind of problem is nothing new, but getting way more sophisticated and commonplace. An aside I'm also worried about is when there's a generation who no longer cares about the preservation of beautiful natural areas because they've grown up with concocted visual substitutes for that. All of our Park districts in this part of the world - Regional, State, and Natonal - are highly aware of that risk, so have put in place programs to encourage younger generations to get out and see things for themselves, with or without cameras (some venues do prohibit cell phone use or other e-distractions in these outdoor adventure settings).

That strategy is working to a degree, especially locally, but I don't know on how widespread a scale. Lardassophography or faux nature photography, desktop manipulating imagery instead of actually seeing it for oneself, has its own momentum, and it makes me sick.

The upside of this may be that there will be fewer deaths and injuries of people trying to take a selfie on the precipice of some cliff overlooking a spectacular view. One ranger I spoke with told me that at least three times a week in the park I was visiting, people had to be rescued (sometimes by helicopter) because they fell taking selfies.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

two dimensional black and white medium, the medium itself introduces a distortion to the depiction of that event.

That's it right there. The whole process - framing, choice of lens, filter, choice of film, choice of developer, development time, agitation, choice of paper, choice of contrast filter, dodging, burning, toning, etc. - introduces a degree, a level of distortion of what was seen by the photographer's eye.

Essentially, the distinction being made in this thread is between acceptable distortion and fabrication.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Pieter12 might be referring to the famous Kent State Massacre photo, taken on May 4, 1970, by Kent State photojournalism student John Paul Filo:

Before:

As published in Life, Time, People, and others:

The fence pole was airbrushed out in the early 70s, nobody knows by whom.

Not a major deletion that changes the meaning of the photograph but it is a slippery slope. See post #225 which is why the photographs should be shown as photographed. Also just because something was done in the past does not justify in the present - for example slavery.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The pole should have been left because it is such an important news document. Once you start modifying the facts, it creates doubt in the minds of many. What else was changed that hasn't been revealed? Why should we trust the picture at all?

Today, many news outlets would fire the photographer for that modification because they know once the media goes down that path, people stop trusting them in all matters.

I agree that any change should not be made to the photograph, if it changes the meaning of the photography.

 

[madNbad]

The upside of this may be that there will be fewer deaths and injuries of people trying to take a selfie on the precipice of some cliff overlooking a spectacular view. One ranger I spoke with told me that at least three times a week in the park I was visiting, people had to be rescued (sometimes by helicopter) because they fell taking selfies.

As my father would often say, "You can't make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious."

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I agree that any change should not be made to the photograph, if it changes the meaning of the photography.

This is not absolute and is function of many factors. The "meaning" of this photo - a young student protester killed by US troops, and the young women's reaction - isn't altered by the omission of the pole. The omission is forbidden because there are strict rules within journalism about not altering photographs destined for publication.

To push this ambiguity further: had I taken the photograph, I would hang on my wall the altered photo (that pole really bugs me) but would have sent news outlets the unaltered photo.

 

[Pieter12]

Many news outlets today do not have the same ethical standards as in the recent past, but alteration of an image was not uncommon and even accepted in the early days. http://www.errolmorris.com/media/general/Seeingexcerpt.pdf

 

[Rrrgcy]

It wasn't their decision. They didn't know. Please read my post above.

These magazines had strict rules about that. W. Eugene Smith's altered photos of Schweitzer was rejected because of that, which pushed him to leave the magazine in anger and protest.




In absence of evidence, the photographer's feelings about this should not be made subject to hypothesis. He may not have cared, he might have been pissed. We just don't know. Implying one over the other is quite unfair to him.

You can’t say with certainty what Time, Life, People, etc. or the photographer knew and what happened. And I did say “may” proviso “probably” (given self interest).

Limited internet research is limited and Wikipedia is colored. Crime happens; the U.S. government and Attorney General’s guidelines are often broken; and despite compulsory grand jury rules at stake of criminal sanction, those are offended and violated. Despite serious repercussions and risk of reputation, people and organizations have self interests which some times are at odds to its public and hi-minded mission.

My cursory non-definitive Internet review gives:

John Filo the student photographer is reported head of CBS photography and formerly a picture editor of Newsweek. He’s had ample time to explain where and how it became converted, that is if he knew (I emphasize if he knew). Certainly he‘d be aware of the alteration given its publicity; some expect his professionalism, much less curiosity, to cause him to look about and clarify anything. Cursory Internet review doesn’t immediately provide investigation much less results of investigation to ”what happened” beyond a statement by David Friend who when Dir. of Photography with Life said the image came from its photo collection and was at one time airbrushed by someone anonymous “in a darkroom sometime in the early 1970’s”… and Life couldn’t get an image directly from Filo the photographer quickly enough before prInt. It all sounds shaky. Call me an always-skeptic unless there’s a lot more circumstantial or direct evidence in the presentation of what happened beyond some words of someone in the (albeit later) chain of command.

Friend added, “At no time would Life’s photo, art or production department intentionally alter a news photograph.” Study that caveat. But I get it. I’d be interested to read what the photographer may have said about everything. If nothing, why? His image, maybe he’s explained something about it.

On point (maybe alluding to straight photography, whatever that is)(to Sep. 11 imagery and impact), Friend encouragingly, said, “People are deniers of many things in life, but through pictures, we can see the reality of what happened that day. And no matter what conspiracy theorists or purveyors of fake news would have you believe, this really happened.”

Well, then keeping the fence post I’m guessing is the approved solution. That is straight photography to me.

 

[Pieter12]

You can’t say with certainty what Time, Life, People, etc. or the photographer knew and what happened. And I did say “may” proviso “probably” (given self interest).

Limited internet research is limited and Wikipedia is colored. Crime happens; the U.S. government and Attorney General’s guidelines are often broken; and despite compulsory grand jury rules at stake of criminal sanction, those are offended and violated. Despite serious repercussions and risk of reputation, people and organizations have self interests which some times are at odds to its public and hi-minded mission.

My cursory non-definitive Internet review gives:

John Filo the student photographer is reported head of CBS photography and formerly a picture editor of Newsweek. He’s had ample time to explain where and how it became converted, that is if he knew (I emphasize if he knew). Certainly he‘d be aware of the alteration given its publicity; some expect his professionalism, much less curiosity, to cause him to look about and clarify anything. Cursory Internet review doesn’t immediately provide investigation much less results of investigation to ”what happened” beyond a statement by David Friend who when Dir. of Photography with Life said the image came from its photo collection and was at one time airbrushed by someone anonymous “in a darkroom sometime in the early 1970’s”… and Life couldn’t get an image directly from Filo the photographer quickly enough before prInt. It all sounds shaky. Call me an always-skeptic unless there’s a lot more circumstantial or direct evidence in the presentation of what happened beyond some words of someone in the (albeit later) chain of command.

Friend added, “At no time would Life’s photo, art or production department intentionally alter a news photograph.” Study that caveat. But I get it. I’d be interested to read what the photographer may have said about everything. If nothing, why?

On point (maybe alluding to straight photography, whatever that is)(to Sep. 11 imagery and impact), Friend encouragingly, said, “People are deniers of many things in life, but through pictures, we can see the reality of what happened that day. And no matter what conspiracy theorists or purveyors of fake news would have you believe, this really happened.”

Well, then keeping the fence post I’m guessing is the approved solution.

Does the removal of the fence post in any way alter the truth of what is depicted? If the unaltered photo had been published instead, would anything change? Maybe the maintenance crew are upset because they carefully placed that post to hold up the fence. People need to remove the sticks from up certain anatomical parts.

 

[MattKing]

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.