Photoshopping Street Photos Yes/No?

[Sparrow]

editorial: as in the view or ethos of the publisher.

I was trying to avoid using objectivity because everyone seems to have their own subjective opinion on objectivity.

Anyway this idea that a photo should be neutral in some way, true or honest, seems bizarre to me. Would any of the big names in photojournalists aspire to be neutral? Capa wading ashore under heavy fire grim-faced and determined to get the German angle on the thing? as preposterous as the idea anyone could ever be objective.

My views on the Libyan crisis are probably a mix of cynicism and idealism, much like everything else ... but it isn't without bias.

 

[Roger Hicks]

editorial: as in the view or ethos of the publisher.

I was trying to avoid using objectivity because everyone seems to have their own subjective opinion on objectivity.

Anyway this idea that a photo should be neutral in some way, true or honest, seems bizarre to me. Would any of the big names in photojournalists aspire to be neutral? Capa wading ashore under heavy fire grim-faced and determined to get the German angle on the thing? as preposterous as the idea anyone could ever be objective.

My views on the Libyan crisis are probably a mix of cynicism and idealism, much like everything else ... but it isn't without bias.

Dear Stewart,

I couldn't agree more. Anyone who believes in 'objectivity' in journalism is one or more of the following: (1) unclear on the meaning of the word (2) not a journalist, whether in words or pics (3) very bad at journalism (4) self-deceiving (5) lying...

Cheers,

R.

 

[tbarker13]

I believe in objectivity (or at least striving for it) in journalism.

It's really a game of semantics, though. Of course true objectivity is impossible to achieve by any human being - as we are all shaped by our pasts, our education, our economic condition, etc. etc.

But that doesn't give a journalist an excuse to decide who is right and who is wrong every time they write a story or take a photo.
We can talk about the obvious cases. Rarely, for example, is anyone going to be sympathetic towards a convicted murderer.

But let's use the example of a corrupt government facing an uprising. It's very tempting to take sides, painting the government as evil and the protesters as angels. But history is littered with examples of corrupt governments that have been overthrown and replaced by governments even more oppressive and corrupt.

So I would suggest that anyone who makes a practice of tossing objectivity out the window is a very bad journalist with the potential to be dangerous to the world around them.

I understand that you come at journalism from a different perspective than I do. You are paid for your opinions. As are the columnists at the newspapers I've worked for.
But as a reporter, I am paid to find interesting stories and write about the opinions of other people. And I do that as objectively as I can.

 

[tbarker13]

I agree. Here's the thing, changing the sky or erasing someone changes the meaning of the photo. Removing a candy wrapper some lazy person tossed on the ground does not. That's the sort of thing I do, to clean up the photo. I'm not talking about a street with a lot of trash strewn about; in that case the trash is an important part of the scene. I am removing random stuff that isn't a part of what's going on and is simply ugly and distracting. I could just pick the stuff up and throw it in a trash can before shooting, and I do if one is available, but out in the country in the middle of nowhere you can't always find a garbage can.

And I don't have any issue with taking care of the odd piece of trash. I've taken a bit of an extreme stance in this debate, probably because this is a topic about which I am incredibly passionate.

I just don't believe we should ever get to the point - as documentary photographers - where we think it's totally ok to make substantial alterations to our photos. Technology has made it so very easy to do. And that's not necessarily a good thing.

 

[sar-photo]

I was reading 'On Being A Photographer' by David Hurn and Bill Jay last night. The book was written in the early 00's (I think - although it could have been the late 90's) and touches on this topic.
David Hurn says that in the past photographers would stamp the back of their photos with 'Do Not Crop'. He goes on to say that he now stamps the back of his photos with 'Do Not Manipulate' as well, adding that he trusts the publications that will use his images to honour his wishes.

Another point is that although photoshop does make it easier to manipulate images, it seems that there is usually someone who eventually unearths evidence that a manipulated photo is not genuine - the jumping wolf (not manipulated, but staged), the sports photographer who erased unsightly legs sticking out below a banner in the background and so on.

Simon

 

[Sparrow]

I believe in objectivity (or at least striving for it) in journalism.

It's really a game of semantics, though. Of course true objectivity is impossible to achieve by any human being - as we are all shaped by our pasts, our education, our economic condition, etc. etc.

But that doesn't give a journalist an excuse to decide who is right and who is wrong every time they write a story or take a photo.
We can talk about the obvious cases. Rarely, for example, is anyone going to be sympathetic towards a convicted murderer.

But let's use the example of a corrupt government facing an uprising. It's very tempting to take sides, painting the government as evil and the protesters as angels. But history is littered with examples of corrupt governments that have been overthrown and replaced by governments even more oppressive and corrupt.

So I would suggest that anyone who makes a practice of tossing objectivity out the window is a very bad journalist with the potential to be dangerous to the world around them.

I understand that you come at journalism from a different perspective than I do. You are paid for your opinions. As are the columnists at the newspapers I've worked for.
But as a reporter, I am paid to find interesting stories and write about the opinions of other people. And I do that as objectively as I can.

OK lets do that: First off, who's jurisdiction do we use to decide they're corrupt?

When that first bunch of photojournalists were reporting on the rise of Fascism in the 1930s do you really believe they were aiming at objectivity? They invented the genre, and they choose to take sides, are you ethics superia to theirs?

The idea of objectivity is something invented by governments in the 1960, to stop press criticism.

I think "And I do that as objectively as I can." is exactly it, yesterdays brave Mujahideen is today's dastardly al-Qaeda, no?

 

[ainnocent]

I also feel dirty doing it. I usually try to just to contrast adjustments and whatnot, cleaning up the image without altering the "soul" of the image with digital enhancements/manipulation. But I still feel dirty using photoshop on an image scanned from film regardless...

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I also feel dirty doing it. I usually try to just to contrast adjustments and whatnot, cleaning up the image without altering the "soul" of the image with digital enhancements/manipulation. But I still feel dirty using photoshop on an image scanned from film regardless...

If you actually feel 'dirty' adjusting contrast on a scan of a negative in Photoshop, then please stop wasting your time and money on photography. You've already decided to put a wall between you and any possibility that you will be even moderately successful in producing images that look good when you print them.

I can understand not wanting to combine images or remove major things from an image, but you are talking about basic, non-negotiable requirements to make a scanned image look correct. If you printed in the darkroom instead of using a computer, would you use the same enlarger exposure time for every photo, same paper grade, etc. to avoid feeling 'dirty'? Of course not, if you have any desire for decent prints. Scanning makes individual adjustments to each image even more important because film scanners all scan in negatives too low in contrast. This is because they're designed for the wider density range of slide films. Scan a lower contrast film, and all negative films are, then the scan looks flat and crappy.

This is not a religion, its art. This is not a moral question; even photojournalists are allowed to adjust contrast and color on their images. Don't put artificial barriers in your way. Trust me, you will not go to Hell for using Photoshop to adjust contrast. :bang:

 

[Roger Hicks]

I believe in objectivity (or at least striving for it) in journalism.
. . .

So I would suggest that anyone who makes a practice of tossing objectivity out the window is a very bad journalist with the potential to be dangerous to the world around them.

. . .

But as a reporter, I am paid to find interesting stories and write about the opinions of other people. And I do that as objectively as I can.

Dear Tim,

Hold on. You have completely lost objectivity yourself. Re-read the second para from the crop above. You say 'tossing objectivity out the window'. That's not quite the same as denying the possibility of absolute objectivity (on which you and I agree) nor yet the same as 'writing with an honest, stated bias' (about which we may or may not agree). In other words you're using highly emotive language to argue against... um... highly emotive language.

'Paid to find interesting stories'? You know better than I that 'interesting' lies as much in the skill of the reporter as in the story. There are those who could file a dull report of a flying saucer landing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[igi]

As far as I'm concerned, you can't call a cloned image a photograph. How can you deny the existence of an object that is present at that certain time and space? How can you take a photo of a scene that didn't happen in the first place?

 

[tbarker13]

OK lets do that: First off, who's jurisdiction do we use to decide they're corrupt?

When that first bunch of photojournalists were reporting on the rise of Fascism in the 1930s do you really believe they were aiming at objectivity? They invented the genre, and they choose to take sides, are you ethics superia to theirs?

Well, if they were using their position to support one cause over another, then I guess I will claim that my ethics are superior to theirs. Frankly, the early days of journalism is not a good to place to go in the quest for examples of strong ethical behavior. Far too many examples of powerful publishers using their newspapers for selfish or political reasons.

But your first comment is exactly what I am talking about. Who decides who is right and wrong? Corrupt or not corrupt?
Sometimes it's an easy decision. We as a society generally agree that Adolf Hitler wasn't a good man.
But there are far too many gray areas in this world for us to decide who is right and wrong.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

As far as I'm concerned, you can't call a cloned image a photograph. How can you deny the existence of an object that is present at that certain time and space? How can you take a photo of a scene that didn't happen in the first place?

So are Jerry Uelsmann's pictures not photographs? Or Man Ray's? No one's been willing to answer this yet. Well, actually, they are, and always have been, regarded as perfectly good and genuine photographs by those who matter in the art and photography world, but what do the fundamentalists here think?

 

[tbarker13]

Dear Tim,

In other words you're using highly emotive language to argue against... um... highly emotive language.

I don't think I ever said the quest to present stories in an objective manner had to use boring or emotionless language.

 

[johannielscom]

So are Jerry Uelsmann's pictures not photographs? Or Man Ray's? No one's been willing to answer this yet. Well, actually, they are, and always have been, regarded as perfectly good and genuine photographs by those who matter in the art and photography world, but what do the fundamentalists here think?

Chris I'm with you on your posts to the thread all the way, but I guess there's just too few artists here and to many 'documentalists' who use photography to capture 'reality'.

'General Warning: Buzzardkids street photography has nothing to do with non-existent concepts like 'reality' and 'truth', just with images and imagination. He is a subversive, beware.' 😀😀😀

 

[Sparrow]

Well, if they were using their position to support one cause over another, then I guess I will claim that my ethics are superior to theirs. Frankly, the early days of journalism is not a good to place to go in the quest for examples of strong ethical behavior. Far too many examples of powerful publishers using their newspapers for selfish or political reasons.

But your first comment is exactly what I am talking about. Who decides who is right and wrong? Corrupt or not corrupt?
Sometimes it's an easy decision. We as a society generally agree that Adolf Hitler wasn't a good man.
But there are far too many gray areas in this world for us to decide who is right and wrong.

My point is simply that your objectivity is a product of your society, of your time and place and can only be objective relative to you, there cannot ever be an absolute objectivity.

As a point of fact, the Fascists were only shown to be a bad thing because of the bravery of a committed bunch of photojournalists and publishers. The "objective" view of the US press was supportive of the right in Europe and isolationist almost to a man so your contention is somewhat at odds with the facts.

 

[ainnocent]

If you actually feel 'dirty' adjusting contrast on a scan of a negative in Photoshop, then please stop wasting your time and money on photography. You've already decided to put a wall between you and any possibility that you will be even moderately successful in producing images that look good when you print them.

I can understand not wanting to combine images or remove major things from an image, but you are talking about basic, non-negotiable requirements to make a scanned image look correct. If you printed in the darkroom instead of using a computer, would you use the same enlarger exposure time for every photo, same paper grade, etc. to avoid feeling 'dirty'? Of course not, if you have any desire for decent prints. Scanning makes individual adjustments to each image even more important because film scanners all scan in negatives too low in contrast. This is because they're designed for the wider density range of slide films. Scan a lower contrast film, and all negative films are, then the scan looks flat and crappy.

This is not a religion, its art. This is not a moral question; even photojournalists are allowed to adjust contrast and color on their images. Don't put artificial barriers in your way. Trust me, you will not go to Hell for using Photoshop to adjust contrast. :bang:

You have a point- correcting the weaknesses of the scanner isn't sacrilegious. I'm being facetious when I say "dirty." On the other hand, I certainly want don't want my scans to end up like the plethora of "I just learned Photoshop" images on the web. 😉 As someone who is indeed a beginner with Photoshop there's a fine line that I'm weary of crossing.

 

[igi]

So are Jerry Uelsmann's pictures not photographs? Or Man Ray's? No one's been willing to answer this yet. Well, actually, they are, and always have been, regarded as perfectly good and genuine photographs by those who matter in the art and photography world, but what do the fundamentalists here think?

They're called composite photographs. The word "composite" makes all the difference. It's a perfect term coined by "those who matter in the art and photography world".

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

They're called composite photographs. The word "composite" makes all the difference. It's a perfect term coined by "those who matter in the art and photography world".

I've never seen that term used in galleries or museums, and I spent A LOT of time in the big Santa Fe galleries like Andrew Smith and Photo Eye during the years I lived out in Santa Fe. They just called them Silver Gelatin Prints, the same name used for any black and white print done on commercially produced silver-based paper in the 20th and 21st centuries.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

You have a point- correcting the weaknesses of the scanner isn't sacrilegious. I'm being facetious when I say "dirty." On the other hand, I certainly want don't want my scans to end up like the plethora of "I just learned Photoshop" images on the web. 😉 As someone who is indeed a beginner with Photoshop there's a fine line that I'm weary of crossing.

Its hard to overprocess a black and white photo in Photoshop in a way that makes it look 'photoshopped'. I know a lot of people shooting color pump up color saturation too much and some HDR stuff looks faked, but black and white seems somewhat immune to that.

Unless you're doing something like this:

Not the greatest picture in the world. I did it about 10 yrs ago to teach myself to combine images, which is a useful skill for graphic design work, which I do some of to supplement my earnings from photography. I've sold a few prints of it over the years though, so I guess someone thought it was a great one.

 

[tbarker13]

My point is simply that your objectivity is a product of your society, of your time and place and can only be objective relative to you, there cannot ever be an absolute objectivity.

As a point of fact, the Fascists were only shown to be a bad thing because of the bravery of a committed bunch of photojournalists and publishers. The "objective" view of the US press was supportive of the right in Europe and isolationist almost to a man so your contention is somewhat at odds with the facts.

I think we aren't communicating. If you re-read my earlier posts, you'll see that we agree on this. I've argued that objectivity is something we strive for - knowing that our own backgrounds and experiences color our views. It's impossible to be truly objective.
But that doesn't mean we don't try.

Objectivity, in practice, doesn't mean you give equal weight to everything you see or hear.
But you must always question whether you might be letting your own feelings get in the way. As was the case with Hitler (Time Magazine's man of the year in 1939) there's just no way to know how things are going to go.
Still, it wasn't necessarily a lack of objectivity that led some elements of the press (and politicians) to support Adolph Hitler. It was also a lack of information and understanding of what this man was about.