All I have are questions. As an amature photographer I will probably never have to think about these things as I ply my avocation. As a consumer of journalism I will be faced with this issue every day. What type of manipulation is acceptable of a photojournalist? Is the manipulation of a photo more objectionable than the manipulation of the event? Is it more common for a a photographer to manipulate the event to get the photo he wants, or to manipulate the photo after the fact? Two people at a public gathering may never encounter each other at the event. Would it be OK for me to seek them out and ask them to pose together, and then present that image as an illustration of the event? Now that I've asked the two people to pose is it OK for me to ask one of them to hold some item idicitive of the event? Is it OK for me to ask them to smile? Or give a serious look? Or look straight at the camera? Or look toward the main event? Is it OK for me to allow the subject to prepare for the photo? Can I wait for a politition to put down his drink at a fundraiser before taking his picture? Might I be complicit at hiding this ellected official's drinking problem? Is any coordination between the photographer and subject manipulation? It would seem to me that the only images close to being free of manipulation from the photographer are candid shots taken from a hidden vantage point. Any other scenerio implies that either the photographer or the subject has manipulated the situation into something that otherwise would have never occured. A few years ago there was a protest in a major city. I don't recall the city or cause, but the protesters where naked. There was a photo published of several protesters posing with their privates covered. This photo definitly looked posed to me. Assuming was posed did the photographer commit an act of deciept by asking the protesters to cover-up so that a publishable shot could be taken? I think every photo is a manipulated event. The important aspect is how well the photo represents the event. Does adding a peice of sports equipment modify the meaning of an otherwise staged photo of a team portrait? Probably not. Would it modify the meaning of an action shot during a game. Definitly. Thank You, Tim Corio On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:34 -0400, Angela Turnpaugh wrote: > Taped to my computer at the newspaper that I work for is an excerpt from the > National Press Photographers Associastion (NPPA) bylaws it reads: > "As journalists, we believe that credibility is our greatest asset. In > documentary photojournalism, it is wrong to alter the content of a > photograph in any way (electronically or in the darkroom) that deceives the > public. We believe the guidelines for fair and accurate reporting should be > the criteria for judging what may be done electronically to a photograph." > > That is very cut and dried to me. We color correct and size our photos. We > also dodge and burn, but that is NOT altering the CONTENT of a photograph. > Erasing someone's legs IS altering the content, it does not matter if that > content is relevant to the photo or not (and don't even get me started on > adding a puck or ball!). > If you were there, and you knew that someone was standing there, and the > legs were no longer visible, how could you ever believe what you see in the > paper again? I think our readers need to trust that what they see in the > paper is what was there. I have always looked at my job as being the eyes > for those who cannot be there...to show you exactly what I see and how I see > it..... > > Angi Turnpaugh > Pharos-Tribune Staff Photographer > (574)722-5000 ext 5152 >
