danielsterno
making soup from mud
here we go:
We invite you to join our conversation about the rules and ethics of digital photojournalism: http://nyti.ms/17MCjnp
The New York Times - Lens - Photography
We invite you to join our conversation about the rules and ethics of digital photojournalism: http://nyti.ms/17MCjnp
The New York Times - Lens - Photography
dasuess
Nikon Freak
Wonder what they would have done with a Gene Smith print.
CMur12
Veteran
I still haven't made the transition to digital, so my understanding of a lot of this is limited.
Even so, at least in concept, removal or addition, emphasizing or de-emphasizing of content in a documentary photo would be tantamount to changing the wording in a written document.
In practice, however, it may not be so clear.
One of the respondents made some interesting points about what can be accurately deduced from the RAW files, pointing out also and the very act of cropping is a form of deletion of material. Then we get into the fact that the photographer could also "crop" the image with a zoom lens or the focal length selected for the shot. Taking it even further, can we trust the chosen framing of the shot to be truly representative of the scene or situation being presented?
I can appreciate that coming up with standards for photographic truth in photojournalism will be a challenge.
- Murray
Even so, at least in concept, removal or addition, emphasizing or de-emphasizing of content in a documentary photo would be tantamount to changing the wording in a written document.
In practice, however, it may not be so clear.
One of the respondents made some interesting points about what can be accurately deduced from the RAW files, pointing out also and the very act of cropping is a form of deletion of material. Then we get into the fact that the photographer could also "crop" the image with a zoom lens or the focal length selected for the shot. Taking it even further, can we trust the chosen framing of the shot to be truly representative of the scene or situation being presented?
I can appreciate that coming up with standards for photographic truth in photojournalism will be a challenge.
- Murray
If they don't approve my reply here it is...
Pretty much anything that was done in the wet darkroom should be allowed. As long as it does not materially alter the photo's truthfulness. Like no composited, phony images. Mainly dodging and burning.
Small amounts of cloning to clean up an image does not bother me as long as it does not alter the image in a meaningful way. I routinely clone out a stray water bottle or cigarette butt. I may clone out my foot or shadow, but I wont add my foot or shadow.
Sometimes the BW purists materially destroy the image without thinking about it when they drop the color. They do more damage than cloning by being ego driven BW fanatics. Take a look at this example. It shows how you can lose important information if you put your ego first.
http://testarchives.tumblr.com/image/110723876609
The above example could have worked in BW or color. But when it goes BW you lose the bluish light on the upper left. The blue light signifies the prostitute depicted in the graf is a male transsexual. So, that's what is lost in the BW version.
In my own case I do social documentary photography for love of freezing time. I don't do it for money or contests. As such I do whatever I like as long as I feel I have done the image justice and can stand behind the photo.
This shot was done with 2-1/2 hours of dodging and burning with Lightroom.
(nsfw)
http://testarchives.tumblr.com/image/109513079209
No cloning, but if cloning was needed in small amounts so what?
Pretty much anything that was done in the wet darkroom should be allowed. As long as it does not materially alter the photo's truthfulness. Like no composited, phony images. Mainly dodging and burning.
Small amounts of cloning to clean up an image does not bother me as long as it does not alter the image in a meaningful way. I routinely clone out a stray water bottle or cigarette butt. I may clone out my foot or shadow, but I wont add my foot or shadow.
Sometimes the BW purists materially destroy the image without thinking about it when they drop the color. They do more damage than cloning by being ego driven BW fanatics. Take a look at this example. It shows how you can lose important information if you put your ego first.
http://testarchives.tumblr.com/image/110723876609
The above example could have worked in BW or color. But when it goes BW you lose the bluish light on the upper left. The blue light signifies the prostitute depicted in the graf is a male transsexual. So, that's what is lost in the BW version.
In my own case I do social documentary photography for love of freezing time. I don't do it for money or contests. As such I do whatever I like as long as I feel I have done the image justice and can stand behind the photo.
This shot was done with 2-1/2 hours of dodging and burning with Lightroom.
(nsfw)
http://testarchives.tumblr.com/image/109513079209
No cloning, but if cloning was needed in small amounts so what?
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I agree with one of the commenters who suggested that the outrage would be more defensible if the winning photograph didn't look like it was posed, bordering on photo illustration.