Log In | Register
Don't get me wrong, I have a huge respect for photojournalism and photography in general. But I think there is a ridiculous amount of faith put into fidelity of the lens to capture events. The practice of photomanipulation has been around as long as photography itself has.
When done right, photography and photojournalism can be an amazing alternative or complement to print journalism. It can show many things that words can not: facial expressions, the bleakness of a tenement building, the beauty of a sunset. Sometimes a single photograph can do a better job of setting a scene or telling a story than a 10,000-word article, to borrow a phrase.
With that said however, I think that there is (and probably always has been) a major flaw in photography. I think the fact that photography is seen as a more objective medium than print - or even painting - is dangerous. There is a perception that taking a photograph is somehow more truthful because it is simply capturing an event in time and reproducing it exactly onto a piece of paper (or whatever.)
But I think the idea of photography's verisimilitude is pretty much unwarranted because there are thousands of ways (even before the invention of photoshop) to alter a photograph in pre- and post-development.
In 1903, Edward Steichen said...
In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark room the developer is mixed for detail, breath, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability. From Adobe Magazine 6(3), 104)qtd. here
But the perception that photography is a substitute for reality can be used for mis-information or propaganda. Just look at the phenomenon of "Stalinist Photography," a term coined by artist David Hockney.
During Stalin's reign in Russia, history had a tendency of being rewritten to fit party lines and photography was one of the tools Russian leaders used for "officially" changing history. Photographs were retouched and altered to the point where they became falsifications. David King, in the book, The Commissar Vanishes, assembles a large collection of photographs that were altered by the Stalinist government. Here are some examples:
1) On the right is a postcard of soldiers in 1917 with store sign in the background that says "Watches of Gold and Silver." Below it is the altered version where the store sign is replaced by party slogans. Notice the differences of the banners being waved.
2) The original photo - on the right - shows Lenin and Trotsky at the second anniversary of the Russian revolution in Red Square. The photo below it is the altered version. Trotsky has been airbrushed out.
The altered photos show no tell-tale signs of being tampered with, and it is only pure chance that their original versions have been preserved to show what really happened. But who knows how many others have disappeared. The scary thing is that these photos were altered in the first half of the 20th century using rudimentary darkroom tools. Imagine what can be done today with all the technology available!
Some new online companies have offered to "touch up" photographs: For a fee, they can digitally remove an evil ex-boyfriend, a disowned daughter or even that random wayward stranger who's ruining an otherwise fine family holiday group shot.
Now in my opinion, I think this alteration is a perfectly reasonable practice. The problem lies in the fact that photos are used in as evidence in a courtroom or in military surveillance. This goes back to the sense of trust that people put in the truthfulness of photography. Sure there are forensic experts who can tell you if somethings been photoshopped or not, but they're not always right, and it's getting harder and harder to tell. If I were on trial for something, I'd hate to have a doctored photo used against me in court.
In the murky waters of journalism, photographers seem to be put on a higher foot stool than reporters, after all they can't really get a quote wrong or twist your words around, can they? But there have been quite a few examples where people have been fired for altering photographs. That's good, it keeps us honest. But as it gets easier and easier to do and as newspapers lose more money and staff, more of this stuff is going to slip through the cracks.
For an interesting look at the history of the media's struggle with the practice, this article from the Christian Science Monitor does a pretty good job. The most famous example is the controversy over how Time magazine altered O.J. Simpson's mug shot for the cover of their magazine. Not a happy day in photojournalism.
Now, a number of things have been done to deal with this phenomenon - such as the NPPA's recent "modernization" of their Code of Ethics - but the damage has already been done and the precedents have already been set.
I think the best thing to do at this point - and this is coming from someone with a large amount of respect for photography as a form of art and as a means of "reporting" - is to stop worshiping photography as an avatar of verisimilitude and objectivity, and instead, people should be as skeptical of it as one would be of a drawing or "artist's rendition" of a subject.
