# Ethics in Photography



## ratssass (Jun 23, 2015)

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/...RK&kwp_0=20768&kwp_4=133696&kwp_1=157037&_r=0


....lol,i think i did better than #7 with my 1st copy of PSP


----------



## weepete (Jun 23, 2015)

Looks like an interesting exibition


----------



## Derrel (Jun 23, 2015)

I read the article and looked at the nine sample pics...wow...I would LOVE to see that show.


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 23, 2015)

I'd love to view that exhibit. It is so tempting to set something up ... to 'fudge' a little in post ... nobody's gonna know.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 23, 2015)

Gary A. said:
			
		

> I'd love to view that exhibit. It is so tempting to set something up ... to 'fudge' a little in post ... nobody's gonna know.



My take from what the one guy was hinting at is that around 20% of these young newbs are faking their shots!!! That is a shocking figure. An article from the NYT that was referenced here a couple months ago had short opinion pieces from young, new PJ's who seemed to me to be rebelling against the old standards and ethics...basically, rebelling against their editors, ands wanting to stage shots so their images would more likely be run...sickening and pathetic. The one guy with the anti-Israel fake smoke clone tool...HILARIOUSLY heavy-handed cloning!!! I remember that shot from when it ran! Talk about a ham-fisted effort to smear one's enemy. But the guy from the Los Angeles Times...wow...what a clown...compositing that shot.


----------



## BrickHouse (Jun 23, 2015)

Interesting read! I hang out with our Combat-Camera guys on occasion while waiting for things to happen and they are all very serious about maintaining the intregrity of their Journalistic work. They're all 19-30yo people with a healthy understanding of why faked photos upset the reader's trust. It's a refreshing attitude from a generation of people that don't always exhibit these types of traits.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jun 23, 2015)

That a growing number of young photojournalists are prepared to manipulate their images is not so very surprising. Whilst not wishing to condone this type of thing, it seems to me that we live in a world in which hedonism and sensationalism are fast becoming the norm. The public seems unable to think for itself and is easily guided, or perhaps it is unwilling to take on this responsibility and wishes to be herded like so much docile cattle. So what if the papers fix their photos, so long as the daily fix of Soma is readily available, who cares?

Meh...


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 24, 2015)

There is a tremendous amount of pressure dumped on reporters/photogs from the home office. (Can you imagine getting caught up in a firefight one day and the next day some REFM editor yelling at you because you were scooped ...)  The internet has added to the pressure by making deadlines ... well ... instant. One of the hardest thing is not to fudge ...  to cheat ... you're bone tired ... not to set something up ... you've been humping all this gear in this stinking heat all day and still nothin' ... I can't get scooped again ... what if I move this rifle a foot to the left ... yes, that's looking better, now the boot just a bit, okay, I have the boot, the flag and the rifle in the same shot ... 

It is tough out there.


----------



## goooner (Jun 24, 2015)

I was always under the impression that the photogs send the unedited photos, and that the press agencies then 'fix' it up for publication.


----------



## Roger3006 (Jun 24, 2015)

Where I come from it is called cheating and is despicable no matter what the situation.

I am 61 and have been hooked on photography for over 50 years. My cousin and I were laughing about me running E6 in the men's room in my college dorm. The Good Lord only knows what people would think I was cooking up if I did that now. At the very least hazmat would pay a visit if not the bomb squad.

I agree with everything above. It scares me that it is so easy to alter an image with today's technology. In my "retirement" I am a firearms broker. I do everything online or over the phone. We photograph everything well which sells guns. The firearms I sell are unique. Much of what we broker is my age or older. Our goal is to present the firearm and make it look just like a perspective buyer is holding in his hand in good light. It would be quick and easy to remove a small scratch or enhance the color and figure in the wood.

I am glad most of my competitors use a phone for a camera and their hand for a holding fixture. The most common backdrop I see is a bedspread or floor.

We will enhance a firearm and make it look perfect for a conception shot for a banner or something else promotional. I would not be able to sleep if I did that on guns I am selling. The real scary part is the crooks and cheaters sleep fine because that is their way of life.

Thank y'all for bringing this up. In my opinion, it is very important. In my opinion, ethics should be a required course in school no matter what the profession or trade. It is a shame but some people just do not know better.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 24, 2015)

Anytime that the goal of the photograph is documentary, it should not be altered at all.  Period.  End of statement.


----------



## Nevermore1 (Jun 24, 2015)

I am going to need to research the dates of the exhibit.  This looks like a good one to take my daughter to for her AP Photography assignment this summer.

I agree with Buckster that if the photo is being taken to document something then it should not be altered.

Sent from my SM-N915T using Tapatalk


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 24, 2015)

goooner said:


> I was always under the impression that the photogs send the unedited photos, and that the press agencies then 'fix' it up for publication.



I had a tour of DINFOS (*Defense Information School*) and saw and heard the training. I did this to arrange a presentation at our local camera club. Military combat photographers do just what is referred to above.  The unedited images are sent to the next highest level. These images are both for documentary and intelligence purposes so the reality as the camera sees it is important.



Buckster said:


> Anytime that the goal of the photograph is documentary, it should not be altered at all.  Period.  End of statement.



So translating from raw (if necessary),brightening, changing contrast, changing levels to reveal detail - that's all out?
Geez, didn't know that.

According to NPPA Code of Ethics NPPA
"Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects."

That seems a bit more sensible to me than decreeing what editing tools one can use.


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 24, 2015)

It is all about accuracy, accuracy and accuracy. As to the chain of custody ... there aren't any set rules. Every organization and every situation is different. 90+% the photogs shoot jpegs because of deadlines. Typically, the photog reviews, selects and edits, (WB/cropping/dodging/burning is acceptable within limits). The photog adds caption info and electronically sends it off to the office. Equally typical, an editor will review the images, (maybe all, maybe not), selects what they want and have someone else perform the edits in the office. In the film days, in the heat of combat, usually I'd package and dispatch the film to a local office with developing instructions and caption info. But if things were winding down, I take the film in myself and do all the processing. It is all about deadlines. I've shot big bowl games where the office supplied messengers on motorcycles. Every quarter we'd toss the film at the messengers and he's take the film to the photo department for development. For games and events away from the office we'd develop and wire from a local wire service office.

All journalists know the rules. All journalists know that if you break the rules you're not only fired but you're blackballed from ever working news again.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 24, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Anytime that the goal of the photograph is documentary, it should not be altered at all.  Period.  End of statement.
> ...


Resorting to such literal extremism just to make a cheap point is pretty childish.  If you can't deal with reality, maybe you should just sit down and let the grownups talk.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 24, 2015)

Gary A said:
			
		

> All journalists know the rules. All journalists know that if you break the rules you're not only fired but you're blackballed from ever working news again.



I think you mean "older, reputable, old-school journalists knew the OLD rules." This New York Times article from their lensblog is titled *Debating The Rules and Ethics of Digital Photojournalism*; the reason that matters is that there's a huge cadre of new-fangled PJ's who want to change the rules, and change the boundaries between old-school ethics, and what THEY WANT to be allowed to do. They want to be allowed to significantly alter,create, and or fake news images.

Here's how that article http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/...ation-ethics-of-digital-photojournalism/?_r=0         begins: "_Significant questions have arisen after a large number of images were disqualified from this year’s World Press Photo competitionbecause of excessive — and sometimes blatant — post-processing. After independent experts examined the images being considered for prizes in the final rounds, and presented their findings to the jury, 20 percent of the photos were disqualified by the judges. This was often because of significant addition or subtraction to the image content.

These disqualifications — almost three times more than in last year’s competition — have generated discussion about the standards in photojournalism for post processing and the alteration of images."
_
Michelle McNally, jury chairwoman for the 2015 World Press Award said, "_Many of these photographers clearly didn’t think what they were doing was wrong. But I’m telling you that it was often very wrong and not accidental. For now, it is hard to know what’s comprised and what’s not."
_
Read the segments from an unamed *Photographer*, and his or her writing, with many lines of excuse-making and bullsH!+ about his/her practices, and how last year, (s)he got caught, and said: "When I was notified that I was disqualified last year I was shocked and embarrassed." and also ,"We live in a world where there is a ton of image manipulation — if 20 percent of the highest level of photographers are doing it — maybe we need to examine what they are doing and come to accept that as a growth of photography." Kind of the old excuse, "HEY--there's a LOT of looters out here, breaking the law, so WTF, I'm going to loot this store too!!!"

It's no wonder this exhibit has been curated.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 24, 2015)

Buckster said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...





Buckster said:


> Anytime that the goal of the photograph is documentary, it should not be altered at all.  Period.  End of statement.



I responded to what you said.
You decided where to draw the lines.

And I thought you were being foolish and too dogmatic.
If you can't accept when someone points out where you were being too dogmatic perhaps you should stay out of discussions and just preach.


----------



## ratssass (Jun 24, 2015)

...smh


----------



## Roger3006 (Jun 24, 2015)

Faking a journalist photograph puts the honest journalist  at a great disadvantage not unlike an athlete taking steroids.  It is hard to compete with someone that is juiced.  In my opinion, both should be banned forever if caught.


----------

