Comments on: Photographic truth and Photoshop

By: CCT Blog Wrap up: New media, new reality, new ethical quandaries | Gnovis Journal

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:11:07 +0000

[...] David Campbell considers the discourse that led to Danish photojournalist Klavs Bo Christensen’s photographs removal from the Photo of the Year competition for color manipulation. [...]

By: The Back Catalogue (2): Photojournalism in the new media economy | David Campbell

Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:22:41 +0000

[...] Photographic truth and Photoshop [...]

By: Photographic manipulation – the new World Press Photo rule | David Campbell -- Photography, Multimedia, Politics

Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:23:59 +0000

[...] Haiti photos from the Danish picture of the year competition – a controversy I discussed here in April. (Note that some of the links in that post no longer find details of the Christensen [...]

By: Revolutions in the media economy (3) – photojournalism’s futures | David Campbell -- Photography, Multimedia, Politics

Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:04:20 +0000

[...] In the wake of renewed concerns about photographic manipulation (which I have discussed here) Hsu is worried about how norms that contest fabrication will be governed. It is an interesting [...]

By: David Campbell

David Campbell — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:42:23 +0000

The New York Times has an article today — Smile and Say ‘No Photoshop’ — on the issue of fashion magazines and Photoshop retouching, with the case of Elle as the starting point.

By: Photographic retouching exposed | David Campbell -- Photography, Multimedia, Politics

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:30:01 +0000

[...] meaning, manipulation and Photoshop have been prominent recently (see my previous posts here and here, with some updates amongst the comments for [...]

By: David Campbell

David Campbell — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:33:22 +0000

Wayne’s comment seems wise to me — work within a recognition of the inherent constructed-ness of photography, and therefore re-position photojournalism as a practice aware of its limits, yet still capable of making important contributions to the posing of questions, the raising of issues, and the provision of material that could function as evidence in a larger story. But none of it justified by mythical claims about the nature of the practice; instead we deal with the way photographic practice works.

By: wayne

wayne — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:02:30 +0000

I worked for nine years in newspaper photography at the Wilmington, NC, Star-News Newspapers, and do have a thought or two about this topic.
I agree, basically, with your question, David; aside from a kind of vague “community standard”, depending on which “community” is asked, what useful, measurable guidelines
can be put into place? Who gets to decide?
Or maybe (and this is my own question)… should the Lack of a deeply satisfying, broadly agreed-upon, basis keep us awake to the fact that so-called journalistic or documentary photography can only be telling a tiny slice of any sort of event or “reality”? Why did we ever come to believe a news photo, in the first place? As amateurs and professionals, alike, know, out of a conceivable 360 degree (and that’s just at eye-level!) set of Points Of View, and out of an unstoppable flow of the perception of Time, the photographer/camera selects only the barest evidence of “what happened”, via the light (and sound?) recordable by the technology available. Can anyone actually make a solid case for that slice being “True” of the whole “event”?
And, if not, then what are we to make of photojournalism.. .even by photojournalists with the highest standards of professionalism and integrity?
I would finally argue that the best use of photojournalism might not be to Answer questions, but to Pose the best questions in Such a compelling way that the intended audience goes searching for the answers, themselves, or at the very least, doesn’t assume it knows the whole truth.

By: gnovis

gnovis — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:27:15 +0000

CCT Blog Wrap up: New media, new reality, new ethical quandaries …

Here at home on Gnovis:

Post thesis, Brad fills his extra time contemplating trends on Photoshop Disaster discussion board. Leading to come interesting conclusions including this comment: Read More » Bookmark/Search this post wi…

By: David Campbell

David Campbell — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:02:19 +0000

Tom and Giovanni’s comments offer important observations on this issue. Both, it seems to me, rightly acknowledge the inherent constructed-ness of photography (including documentary and reportage), yet note equally the larger desire on the part of both practitioners and viewers to have pictures that can be regarded as trustworthy renditions of an event or issue. And that gets to the crux of the matter — what we desire, and what we need.

Believability is key to that, though in the case of black and white, it might stem from the way monochrome has been culturally produced as authentic by the history of documentary photography rather than any inherent perceptual qualities to this style.

The passion evident in debates about Photoshop and truth show that no matter how hard people try to find it, there is no self-evident, objective standard to make clear and unproblematic judgments about what is legitimate and what isn’t. If there were, why would everybody be arguing so? Constantly searching for the mythical foundations of truth to end these debates only papers over a proper understanding of photography as a technology that creates worlds as much as it reveals them.

None of this is to suggest that veracity gets chucked out the window, and that photographers can just do what they like and make things up. Far from it. But this debate reinforces my view that we have to move away from judging photographs on what they are, to thinking about what they do. Photojournalism in particular has to come to terms with its inherent constructed-ness and move on to how it uses this to tell stories, highlight issues, and produce evidence.