|
| The Ethics of Truthfulness [message #920 is a reply to message #112 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 18:47   |
|
12:07pm Oct 30, 2003
Facts should never be confused with the truth. When I decided to "correct" the attached picture I couldn't help but reflect upon the current editorial at ZoneZero. After mulling over my options, I realized that altering this wedding day photograph would be no less truthful than the raw files it was derived from, and that no "facts" would be distorted by doing so. The original version of the image in which the bride blinks merely represents what the camera recorded, but the altered version of the image reflects what I saw in my mind's eye, and what I knew to be the truth of the moment. The photo-mechanics of the camera divided the experience that I was witnessing into "accidental" components, one graceful and the other awkward. This was an arbitrary consequence of coincidence and friction. I simply mended the broken pieces of the moment and restored the whole truth as I knew it to be. I decided that this small part of the story of the bride's wedding would be told using truthfulness rather than fact.
The responsibility for veracity lies not in the limitations of the camera, it lies in my honor and integrity as a witness, and as a man.
The photographic tools of the 21st century do not threaten the truthfulness of the image, they enhance the ability of the ethical picture maker to invest the image with the truth as he sees it. A dishonest reporter doesn't need Photoshop to tell lies.
Chip Simone.
[Updated on: Thu, 26 May 2005 18:48]
|
|
|
|
| Editors--not photogs-- responsible for the SUBSTANTIVE ethical problems. [message #922 is a reply to message #112 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 18:56 |
|
09:24am Nov 6, 2003
I went through Schneider's work and I -- an aspiring photoj trying to make friends in this industry! -- do not believe the disciplinary actions leveled against him to even warrant a reponse, absurd and narrow-minded as they are.
It sounds so silly when photogs and editors bicker (and dock people!) over the ethics of darkening pictures -- at least, when there exist actual ethical issues which cry out for editorial thumbsucking or better, professional action.
Example one: Walski, the LA photog fired for photoshopping two photos into one. While unethical, writers seemed to miss the outrageous element of the photo, the element that gets subscribers to severe relationships with the offending paper immediately. I speak of the fact that Walski changed an actual photo of a soldier protecting civilians, into an image that presents the same soldier pointing his gun at civilians.
http://www.poynter.org/resource/28082/asdf.swf
For shame that this was not cited as Walski's primary offense.
Example two -- Embedding journalists with troops. NOT OFFENSIVE! Problem there (and I speak as a reader, NOT as a journalist) -- the aspect that caused people to accuse mainstream media as being both arrogant and ignorant -- was that editors did not balance those images and stories with objective reporting, i.e. reports from the NON EMBEDDED reporters.
Technically and artistically the business of photography seems to have entered a wonderful period. But I'm obviously not alone when I remark that editors can quit bickering about too dark/not dark enough and instead contemplate on directing their story-tellers toward journalism.
I worked in a management position at a large financial svs. firm during the financial scandals, I've seen bigwigs before they go down. Trust me, their concerns revolve around things exactly like the darkness of their report covers. Such misplaced efforts are transparent, depressing and nothing else. I know that journalists and editors wish for more noble conclusions to ethical dilemmas which inevitably create winners and losers. Winners think bigger.
|
|
|
| PHOTOGRAPHER [message #924 is a reply to message #112 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 19:00 |
|
09:28am Nov 11, 2003
If "embedding" journalists with troops is wrong, then how does altering news photographs compensate for that? Two wrongs do not make a right. Ever heard of "compounding errors"?
If Josh above is right, and editorial practices & attitudes contribute to this situation, then obviously, something has to change on the editorial side of journalism as well.
After reading this particular Editorial, one can conclude that in their enthusiasm for promoting the digital side of photography, the editors of this website have themselves lost sight of the need for objectivity.
Respectfully,
JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER
http://www.musecube.com/JAYcarreon
[Updated on: Thu, 26 May 2005 19:02]
|
|
|
| Easy on the Blanket Assertions [message #925 is a reply to message #112 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 19:02 |
|
07:23pm Nov 6, 2003
Your editorial is filled with a lot of rage and blanket assertions. I was an "embedded" photographer with the 7th Cavalry Regiment. I got shot at every day for twenty days and worked very hard to document the realities of what was happening around me. I was not "These dispositions in essence compromised all of the photojournalists involved, as they inevitably became a propaganda machine not an agency for information. " My images show what happened around me, the good the bad and the ugly. Despite what you claim, I saw some wonderful moments happen in the midst of war and chaos. I also saw some awful moments happen. They were both captured with the same lense. I think that you are making some pretty bold assertions without having been there. I resent your comments and assault on my objectivity which I value to the highest extent.
|
|
|
| good point! [message #927 is a reply to message #925 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 19:03 |
 Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
07:34pm Nov 16, 2003
Warren,
No one is questioning your personal integrity because you were an "embedded journalist", as probably there was no other option either, just because you were one.
However, you will have a hard time defending this practice, given that the entire scheme was not cooked up ( by the military establishment ) for any other purpose but for control of the news, not withstanding your personal commitment to photographing it all, as you tell us.
I hope that the more recent revelations of the ongoing manipulation of information by the Bush administration sheds some light to support our assertions.
Your inevitable bonding with the soldiers to whom your fate was tied during the invasion, can not be placed among the more neutral zones of journalism. I am sure that you did not also photograph behind the "enemy" lines during combats, and then came back to your unit, as it were. In other words, your angle of vision, could only be that from this side of the invading troops.
Do you think I needed to be there, to understand that this is a strategy for harnessing what is being sent out as the imagery of the events of triumphant warriors of those first days of Shock and Awe, remember?
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| compensating? [message #928 is a reply to message #924 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 19:05 |
Pedro Meyer
Messages: 202
Registered: March 2005 |
Senior Member |
|
|
07:46pm Nov 16, 2003
Jay,
I wonder who has suggested that altering news photographs is appropriate, or were you read it. Please read carefully what we have written as you might have misread us.
Of course editorial practices have to change and become much more enlightened in understanding what actually constitutes the alteration of information, as the ways are many.
We stand by the objectivity of the individual and the responsibility that the photo journalist, as a professional, has to have. Not by the picture, per se. The image is not objective, never was, given that it is open to interpretation by the viewer and thus can not fill the role of being specific, thus objective.
Publisher of ZoneZero
|
|
|
| terrible column [message #930 is a reply to message #112 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 19:09 |
|
03:31am Nov 18, 2003
Mr Meyer, what a terrible column you wrote about Patrick Schneder's misdeeds. I am only too happy that your opinion is in the very, very small minority, if any at all.
As a member of NPPA and a member of the working press in the U.S. I am quite glad at the actions taken against Schneider. It was very appropriate.
As for your comments re: embedded journalists'; well I skipped over much of them. They have nothing to do with the Schendier case, and are quite boring to me, and I believe to many readers.
Please take your opinions on that somewhere else. While I may agree with some of your sentiments there, one has nothing to do with the other.
Good day.
Ron
|
|
|
| thank you pedro meyer [message #932 is a reply to message #112 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 19:12 |
|
09:38pm Nov 18, 2003
because the issues were so well expressed by pedro meyer in his piece about patrick schneider's images and the misinterpration of the code of ethics, i can contribute only a thank you to him. i'm grateful to him for connecting the dots, exposing the hypocrisy that is so prevalent it often goes unnoticed and for his insight that a lack of real knowledge about and respect for the dignity of the profession of photography is implicit in the ignorant judgment of patrick schneider's photographs.
elaine ellman
|
|
|
| Quite frankly... [message #934 is a reply to message #112 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 19:14 |
|
08:22am Nov 19, 2003
Keeping on topic with the NPPA decision I think the decision to strip Mr Schneider of his award for the firemen photo is a valid one. Traditional burning and dodging is one thing but completely removing the environment in which the subject resides is practice best left to designers and not valid photojournalism.
I don't have a problem with the other two. I've seen grosser examples come out of the traditional lab and off of misregistered presses on to the front pages of many publications. However, as in all ever evolving fields it is both important to issue the rules of the day and to question the judgements enforcing those rules. Perhaps this issue will at least keep in check those who think code created by a software developer constitutes a valid tool to be applied to the photojournalism industry, and cause those making the rules to revisit just what photojournalism is and should be in this new age.
Professionally and personally I believe strongly that the tools don't make history they simply record them. The resposibility of those operating the tools is to determine which matters more and present the results in as true a fashion as they are meant to imply. Art is art. Photojournalism is photojournalism. When the two crossover it is because one makes it so or it is simply there in the first place and someone has the sight to see it. So what is the NPPA contest all about anyway?
And just like walking (or running) away from every shoot I've ever done I can only ask myself: "Am I missing something here?"
;0)
|
|
|
| Continuing the debate. [message #939 is a reply to message #112 ] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 19:33 |
|
06:17am Nov 24, 2003
After thoroughly reading all the messages in response to Pedro's column I would like to add a few more thoughts to this important issue.
With regard to embedded photographers and editorial bias I think it would be churlish to suggest that those who were assigned these positions were any less objective than those working as unilaterals. Unlike some conflicts there was no easy access between fighting lines for much of the time. I know of a few photographers who were able to do so in the south of Iraq but I have never met anybody who was able to cross over battle lines in the assault on Baghdad.
Not every photographer has to tell all sides of every story every time. Sometimes it is enough that we just tell one side and allow other to tell theirs. What is important is that we are able to photograph our subjects honestly and with as much empathy as the situation allows. Neither denigrating those with whom we disagree nor ignoring the faults of those we like.
Our job is to communicate with other human beings through our pictures. This cannot and should not be done without emotion. We are not machines and should be deeply suspicious of those who claim to be detached from their subjects. If we are unable to feel for those we document our pictures will mean nothing. We should strive therefor to be unflinching in our honesty rather than unfeeling.
Which brings me back to the original point of my unease over the decision to strip Mr Schneider of his award. Maybe Patrick only saw two fire fighters when he took that picture. Perhaps his color perception is different to mine. But has he breathed life into his pictures? That is what the judges at the NPPA should have asked themselves. Is he presenting an original vision that communicates to other human beings what was happening as he saw it?
My own views on these questions I will keep to myself. But I hope that we will all start to ask of ourselves not just whether we have changed the meaning of our pictures but also if we have given them meaning at all?
|
|
|
| A good point well made and also missed. [message #1100 is a reply to message #112 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 18:01 |
|
Justin Sutcliffe - 04:52am Nov 24, 2003
Pedro Meyer makes an eloquent, cogent and courageous stand against the hubris of the NPPA?s decision to strip Schneider of his award. His arguments about the hypocrisy demonstrated during the Iraq conflict are especially poignant at a time when there are so many influences exerting emotional and intellectual forces on photojournalism.
Photojournalists are struggling to come to a consensus about the role that new technology is going to play in their work. What limits we are personally prepared to put on the manipulation of images will likely depend on our different skills. However it is worth remembering that few of the great photojournalists past or present have left their images entirely unaltered.
If we follow the logic of the NPPA in regards to what alters the meaning of a picture then I would expect them to immediately outlaw all use of black & white film, wide-angle or telephoto lenses, drag shutter and silhouettes. Better yet, all still photography should be decried as an abstraction of human vision because our perception and memories are based on movement. Is this where we want to go?
The problem is that wherever we collectively draw the line there will be casualties. But if we apply the subjective rule that we should not do with Photoshop that which could not be done under the printing enlarger then I would say the NPPA has made a terrible mistake. However, the point that we all seem to have missed is this. Did he actually improve any of his pictures through the changes he made? I would suggest that it is very marginal. In fact maybe he ruined the firefighter picture.
|
|
|
Members
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Home
In defense of photographer Patrick Schneider and the fictions of a "Code of Ethics"
