Re: Honest Street Photos - Was Gallery review 12-28-02

[CameraTraveler@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/6/03 12:54:42 AM, ksprouse@hsc.edu writes:


> 1) throughout your post, you seem to possess a great
> faith in the complete objectivity of journalistic reporting, which is
> somewhat refreshing, if surprising, to me


I believe in showing what is there.   One of the definitions of journalism in my online Merriam Webster dictionary is "writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation."   This is what I think any journalist, photo or otherwise, should strive for.   No, I think that is what is expected of them.   It should be beyond question, and certainly not refreshing or surprising that a photojournalist would at least attempt objectivity.

My "faith in the complete objectivity of journalistic reporting" is not necessarily in the work of others, but in my own conscience--if I don't show it as I see it, who will?

3) in my
post, I allowed for some distinctions to be made between an impressionistic
cultural piece (i.e., Doisneau's take on Paris) and "hard news" photos for
a newspaper (which is the direction in which you seem to want to shift the
discussion with your example) -- the context matters -- so while I
understand that your journalistic hackles are raised by staging photos,
it's not really what's at issue here in the Doisneau discussion. After all,
when people look at the Doisneau photo, they are not looking at it for its
"objective news value," so to apply the same standards to it as you try to
do with the car fire news example is to misunderstand the context of the
> reception of the photo.

Truth is, I don't know exactly how Doisneau's image was presented in the magazine-- did an exhaustive search on the internet to see if I could find a reproduction of the actual page or article, but had no success.   So, since the context does matter, we really can't get much farther until we know if any explanation accompanied the photograph, and all we can base our discussion on is two actors kissing in front of a cafe.   I base my opinion on the fact that this image was staged and I therefore question every other photograph made by Doisneau.   He was held up as a model of reportage, but how much of his work really was?   How many other actors and staged scenes were there?

Once more, a couple of comments: 1) the statement "the content of the image
was a lie" is probably not accurate -- I have never heard that the people
in the photo were not actually present or that they weren't actually doing
what they seem to be doing in the photo, so the content doesn't seem to be
> the issue

It is exactly the issue.   They were actors.   The content was phony.   Staged.   Contrived.   Fraudulent.   A sham.   Deception.   Until Doisneau put two actors there the scene was completely different.

Do you mean to reject my argument that all
photos are manipulated or do you agree with it? As a follow-up, then, if
you do accept it, at what point would you draw the line between acceptible
> manipulation and excessive manipulation?

Well, since the only way to see the scene without being an eyewitness is to record it some way, we do the best we can with the tools at our disposal.   For photojournalism I prefer films that don't exagerate colors and give the most accurate representation of what I actually saw.   Excessive manipulation involves things like adding or removing content (things, such as an errant light pole, trash or wires, for example), putting in a blue sky in place of a bald, cloudy one to punch up an image, etc.   The role of a journalist is to observe and record, not to change what is there.

Documentary photography is another genre and shouldn't be confused with photojournalism or reportage (the latter of which Doisneau's reputation was built on). 

Once again, your argument fails to account for the context -- a
journalistic piece in a newspaper is different than a testimonial novel, or
> even a lifestyle piece in US magazine, for that matter.

What was the context of   The Kiss?   How was it presented?

I have a strong
interest in documentary photography, a genre of photography that makes
claims to truth, objectivity, and transparency, but I am also aware that
> nothing about photography is objective and transparent.

Much documentary photography, unfortunately, has in its tradition little to do with "truth, objectivity, and transparency."   Read about the work of Matthew Brady.   Find out how much is staged, arranged to make pleasing compositions or had content added or removed at the photographer's whim.   Photojournalism it isn't.

Good luck coming to grips (aren't grips employed in the movie industry?).

Cheers,

Rich Mason
Photographer-at-Large
http://richmason.com