ethics and toning
There is a very fine line with toning pictures. Software programs that most photographers use on a daily basis allow them to do some pretty crazy things. I went to journalism school right at the start of the digital age and essentially the end of using film on a daily basis. We mostly shot film, used a minilab to develop the film, and then scanned them into the computer and used a program like photoshop to slightly adjust the pictures.
There is also a gray area about what is ethical and what isn't. There are the biggies that are fundamental--like cloning someone/something in or out of your frame. But to me the big part of ethics has to do with intention and misleading. Statements like "If I can do it in a darkroom, it's okay" or "This is what the scene looked like to me" aren't good enough reasons. I've seen what used to be done in a darkroom ---and you can do some pretty drastic things.
This is why for me it comes down to the intent of the photographer, and whether or not it misleads the reader.
These two pictures were shot by a former intern at my paper. It recently ran in a national photo magazine. And while talking to one of our younger photographers about the toning and light in the photograph we happened to do an archive search and discovered the former intern shot the picture during his internship for the paper. (The picture also didn't credit the Seattle Times, which is a violation of the copyright---but that's a different post. For the record, I did receive proper permission from the true copyright holder to use the pictures on my blog.)
Above is how the picture ran in PDN magazine. We scanned it in directly from the magazine and did nothing else to it. If you think it looks weird and drastic, well, that is because it does. But if you want to see it for yourself, it ran in March's PDN magazine as part of the top 30 photographers under 30. It won a CPOY award in 2005 and was part of a portfolio that also placed that same year.
Above is how the picture was shot. This is how it looks in our archive and how it was published in our paper.
So, do I have a problem with this? I sure do. To me, it is misleading. The newly toned picture looks flashed or looks like it was shot outside during a night football game. Not inside a well-lit dome it was shot in. The background is blackened out. And frankly, this new dramatic lighting changes the entire mood of the picture. The reader walks away with a different feeling.
As I mentioned, we discovered the toning/copyright issue when talking to a younger photographer who was curious about limits and what is allowed and what isn't. If one of our photographers turned a photo like this in while shooting for us, there would be severe consequences. But yet photojournalists are doing it all over the world and being rewarded for their work. This photographer received national attention---both by placing in CPOY and then in PDN with this photograph. What message does this send to photographers that are doing good work that is honest and straight-up? And how do we help photographers think about what they are trying to say with a picture IN the camera and not afterwards using a computer?
I don't have all the answers. But newspapers are facing a difficult time and I feel it is important to have pictures that are honest and tell important stories---correctly. We owe the readers that much and frankly they should expect that level of integrity from us.
There is also a gray area about what is ethical and what isn't. There are the biggies that are fundamental--like cloning someone/something in or out of your frame. But to me the big part of ethics has to do with intention and misleading. Statements like "If I can do it in a darkroom, it's okay" or "This is what the scene looked like to me" aren't good enough reasons. I've seen what used to be done in a darkroom ---and you can do some pretty drastic things.
This is why for me it comes down to the intent of the photographer, and whether or not it misleads the reader.
These two pictures were shot by a former intern at my paper. It recently ran in a national photo magazine. And while talking to one of our younger photographers about the toning and light in the photograph we happened to do an archive search and discovered the former intern shot the picture during his internship for the paper. (The picture also didn't credit the Seattle Times, which is a violation of the copyright---but that's a different post. For the record, I did receive proper permission from the true copyright holder to use the pictures on my blog.)
Above is how the picture ran in PDN magazine. We scanned it in directly from the magazine and did nothing else to it. If you think it looks weird and drastic, well, that is because it does. But if you want to see it for yourself, it ran in March's PDN magazine as part of the top 30 photographers under 30. It won a CPOY award in 2005 and was part of a portfolio that also placed that same year.
Above is how the picture was shot. This is how it looks in our archive and how it was published in our paper.
So, do I have a problem with this? I sure do. To me, it is misleading. The newly toned picture looks flashed or looks like it was shot outside during a night football game. Not inside a well-lit dome it was shot in. The background is blackened out. And frankly, this new dramatic lighting changes the entire mood of the picture. The reader walks away with a different feeling.
As I mentioned, we discovered the toning/copyright issue when talking to a younger photographer who was curious about limits and what is allowed and what isn't. If one of our photographers turned a photo like this in while shooting for us, there would be severe consequences. But yet photojournalists are doing it all over the world and being rewarded for their work. This photographer received national attention---both by placing in CPOY and then in PDN with this photograph. What message does this send to photographers that are doing good work that is honest and straight-up? And how do we help photographers think about what they are trying to say with a picture IN the camera and not afterwards using a computer?
I don't have all the answers. But newspapers are facing a difficult time and I feel it is important to have pictures that are honest and tell important stories---correctly. We owe the readers that much and frankly they should expect that level of integrity from us.
31 Comments:
THANK YOU for speaking up about that. I've seen that image several times and think to myself, "gosh, what lens was this person using that gave such a great look to the photo?" I'm young, younger than the photographer who shot that image, and I find it very frustrating when I see (for lack of better words) extremely contrasty, over vignetted, super saturated photos. And also as a young photographer I realize that I've caught myself in the past trying to make a photo have more impact in photoshop. It is mighty tempting when reputation is on the line (or a contest). This just left me being jealous of other people's photoshop skills and not inspired to become a better photojournalist.
Sorry to rant on your blog, but I didn't really know how to take a situation like this one until someone else spoke up.
Feel free to rant back at me.
Oh wow... I always knew that images are sometime toned a bit more when people enter them in contest... but I had never realized that it would be that drastic!
I'm definitely going to be saving and checking your blog more in the future!
(it kinda makes me feel less bad about never winning anything! I'm kinda super conservative when it comes to toning! :))
Thanks for bringing this subject to light. We often joke around the office that next year we'll turn in two different portfolios. One will be our "real" portfolio. No major manipulations except setting basic levels and color corrections. Oh, and cropping. Nothing wrong with a good ol' fashioned honest crop.
The other will be our manipulated portfolio. One filled with "hand-of-God" burning and total, ultra-heavy saturation. Most of us figure the second one would win and we'd have a chance to make a political statement by burning our DVD entry on the podium as we accepted our tainted award.
It is disheartening to see work that is so obviously "worked" be awarded year after year in the contests when all we hear about is keeping it real and ethical. It sends a really bad message to photojournalists. "Do I have to do that in order to be noticed and succeed?"
Does heavy manipulation make it a better picture? Well, it can make it more dramatic and different for sure. Is it an honest picture? I'd argue it isn't. My thought is if people are good enough to do it in the camera, great. If they need to rely on the computer to save their work and make it good or better, they need to become better photographers.
As you said, back in the day you could do all sorts of crazy dodging and burning and bleaching and masking in a darkroom. You could even take out telephone poles if you so desired. You had to be pretty good at it, but you could do it. I would argue ethics weren't a big issue back then. As Louis Liotta once said when asked about how he felt ethically about setting up pictures as Weegee's assistant, he said, "Ethics? Ethics my ass!"
Well, times have changed for the better in the photojournalism world. Now we care about ethics. Its telling the truth with a camera. Its about gaining peoples' trust. Its about our subjects and telling their stories honestly.
Many of the photographers who are doing this type of manipulation are fooling themselves into thinking they are better photographers because their pictures look dramatic or funky or different; that they have a special vision. Perhaps they do have vision. I just wish they'd learn to share it with us by learning to use their cameras more and their computers less.
Hey Carrie -- I think it's an interesting take on things but I can't help but notice that the photographer in question seems to have pretty much left newspapers behind and there is almost no one in the editorial game who would bat an eye at this sort of toning. Right or wrong your concerns are (largely) relative to the newspaper section of our world; as an editorial photographer I've had various magazine clients of mine do crazy shit to my images (swapping out heads from different frames into their favorite composition, drastic toning and color shifting, adding sky or background, etc.) and then others not do enough (straight contact proof from a negative).
As someone who also went to J-school, I don't find the journalism that I was taught to be much of a priority for the vast majority of my clients. Sometimes it really bothers me, other times it is freeing in an artistic sense. But I would offer the idea that even newspapers with strict ethical standards and severe punishment for offenses are themselves in a grey area by the incredibly mundane and cyclical coverage of the same handful of events, people, and ideas each year.
Ultimately I agree with you that toning can be abused to an ethical limit just as cloning or anything else, but evermore the context is just as important.
This comment has been removed by the author.
It's true we don't have universally recognized standards for toning, but the best way I can think of to perpetuate that problem would be to stifle dialogue because the standards don't exist.
There is a difference between clone stamping and overtoning, but there's a difference between homicide and attempted homicide too. Just because one's not as bad as the other doesn't make it acceptable or less of a threat to the way we do things. The field of ethics is no place to shrug one's shoulders, no matter the gravity of the crime.
As a recent graduate I am quite familiar with how bad the market is for photographers right now. Out of the many threats to my profession, however, the one that scares me the most is Joe Schmo Reporter taking a point 'n shoot out on assignment. If those craptastic shots can be juiced up like this one back in the newsroom, it just adds one more layer of why staff photo positions should be frozen and/or eliminated. Is that fair to the readers? No. Is it keeping in the spirit of responsible journalism? No. , but in reflecting upon the decisions of upper-level types in the last few years I'm not convinced those tenets are all that important to them.
It's up to us, photographers and editors, to police ourselves, and that's done through speaking out against crap like this.
I am very glad this discussion is being had. And respectfully, I would like to respond to some of the points John Loomis has made.
John, your logic doesn't fully click - you claim that some editors in different settings wouldn't bat an eye. That may be true, but this blog is about newspapers, so newspapers standards are in effect here. Also, since you went to the University of Missouri (and won a few awards from CPOY while in school there), I would think that the rules and traditions of that institution and CPOY would be fairly familiar to you. If those standards to not apply to your day-to-day jobs, so be it. But that does not mean those ethics are not important and need to be discussed. Nor does it excuse their practice in the settings they were made to be applied in.
The core point being made here is that toning should not be done in a way that is misleading to readers.
And as for newspapers ethics being "in a grey area by the incredibly mundane and cyclical coverage of the same handful of events, people, and ideas each year." Come on - Seriously? Because the same events are covered multiple times, one should be allowed to manipulate images to mislead readers? I guess since election year coverage is upon us, and that pretty much means the same images over and over, it is open season with Photoshop? Totally different issues, my friend.
Again, all my points are not meant to be antagonistic, but further the discussion.
Hey Logan -- Thanks for being classy and giving me a heads up you replied.
I think everything you said is correct... my comment wasn't meant to refute what Carrie had written, just open up the conversation to bring in some more of the context of the wider industry that we are working in, where photo manipulation is extremely common and pretty much accepted as part of the photographic process. Obviously the image in question was made at a newspaper, which is where Carrie works, and that is the context the post was written in, and I respect that. But nothing is made in a vacuum.
My riff about mundane content is a totally different issue as you said and was not in any way meant to explain why toning would or should be justified, but I guess I could try to argue some sketchy line between arbitrary and monotonous assignments leading photographers to want to find some greater sort of artistic touch just to keep themselves from going fucking crazy. I don't think that was the case here (not that I would have any clue), but I was really just having a swipe at my daily paper which is now so hard to read that its a daily depressant.
This sort of bad use of burning is still not even in the top 1000 unethical non-cloning photoshop all-time list I wouldn't think. I'm sure a more interesting discussion could be had (and was) based on Pellegrin's Dafur images in the NYT Mag. a few years ago - now that's some hand of god toning. Anyway, thanks for the conversation.
This is a difficult argument but my basic attitude is that if the manipulation (darkroom or computer) detracts from the content to such an extent that it is the dominant feature of the image then you have gone too far. I don't have a set limit for that and think that the only answer is for people to be properly educated in how to use the tools at their disposal and how the use of those tools can direct the response of a viewer. It is then up to all of us as a community to define the (ever flexible) standards of what is or is not acceptable and in what situation. For example, fashion and art have different rules from reportage and journalism and what is acceptable in one situation is often not acceptable in another.
I personally do not see anything wrong with this particular shot. The subject is obviously #60 and #5 consoling each other, and in the unedited shot there is much to distract the viewer's eye from the subject. To add vignetting and the sepia toning to add emoional impact is not a violation of the intent of the shot.
Ansel Adams said it best; "the negative (original digital image) is the score; the print is the photographer's performance."
If an orchestra played the notes from Johann Strauss's waltze, it would sound wooden and unappealing. But when you add the conductor's flourish and emotional touches it comes to life and affects the listener differently than it might otherwise.
yeah, but... let's not forget that we are talking photojournalism here, not landscape photography.
One could argue that Ansel Adams was a photojournalist. Also, what would be the difference between underexposing two stops or so and doing this toning after the fact? Just questions.
I've seen a lot of blogs, posts in forums and articles written about this subject. My question is this... when is it acceptable to alter an image to make it more dramatic? The subject matter of the football photo was still in place but the Photoshop changes made it more dramatic. In the end was it an effective image? Indeed it was. The adjustments did NOT change the content of the photo and essentially the mood is not changed either -- intensified perhaps but not changed. Why is there so much opposition to creativity? I understand that old school photographers will argue till the cows come home about any kind of manipulation (while they dodge and burn away all day) but realistically we live in a different age of photography now. We have different tools so why not use them? As we build better cars or better instruments to play our music on don't we adopt new practices, tools and rules? Why shouldn't it be the same for photography? Sorry, I guess I'm in the minority but its probably because I enjoy Photoshop so much. We can do amazing things to images these days and I personally enjoy and applaud photo enhancement. I think the line needs to be drawn as far as falsifying an image completely by adding or subtracting elements but to use some vignetting or soft focus or perhaps a color adjustment is a bonus not a crime. Sorry, just my opinion but I kind of think there's a lot of people whining about photo manipulation, not because it breaks rules but because they don't know how to do it themselves and want to squash the talented individuals that can make a photo better using the tools we have today.
To be fair, I'm just going to play Devil's Advocate for a second...
As journalists, when we write a scene, we're writing subjectively -- even if we think we're being objective.
If I'm writing a touching feature story about a son's illness and how it affects the family, I'm going to use words that convey my subjective take on the situation.
Point is, every time we write, we consciously choose words to create the scene we want. We've taken the raw notes and memories of the situation, and create a story with it. We don't add stuff in, but we can sure pick and choose the stuff we do write down.
So I've never really understood why we hold photojournalists to a different standard entirely. I guess the argument could be made that the photojou creates the shot at the scene, but is that fair? Personally, I'd rather see news photos touched up as little as possible, but as long as they're not making use of the clone stamp I'm not sure how worried I am.
Of course, I think your example was an example of trying to put too much emotion into the picture...maybe a little less severe would have been OK.
It's hard to draw the line though, which is why I think so many people want a zero-tolerance policy.
The football photo is a strong photo without any heavy burning or "toning." Why do it? I agree that the burning raises ethical issues. Additionally, it was not necessary.
The photographer did everything possible to get the right angle and the right moment. A good editor or photo contest judge should have been able to see the richness of the photo without the toning or burning. Further, if the photo won CPOY with the heavy burning, it should have sounded an alarm to judges.
Interestingly, there was a time in the NPPA clip contest where "hand of God burning" helped photographers win clip contests and it was an "accepted" practice. I'm glad that day is gone. But it was commonplace in the late 70's.
Perhaps this opens up a whole new discussion about photo awards, newspapers' collective infatuation with them and the games people play to get an edge.
Finally, I love the layouts you showed in your blog. But I am extremely curious to know the names of the photographers whose work adorned the pages.
I looked at these two images and came to the realization why ask why?
In the Mid/late 80's thru mid 90's I worked in print when we all still shot film and did our burn and dodge magic in the darkroom - what makes this any different? The technology has changed, but the end result more than likely would have been the same.
If I had shot something like this on neg film and then used the skills I had acquired through trial and error over time to create the same image in a print - would it have been any more close to reality or more pure to the dogma of photojournalism? I don't believe so - only the technology by which I saw the image and tweaked it in the darkroom has changed. Using Photoshop to achieve this look is not any less pure to manipulating an image in a traditional darkroom.
Film has been used as a palette by which to record our world. When a photographer settled on a film, that photog understood it's particular characteristics of how it would record a moment in time. There were those who shot Fujichrome for its vibrant colors, other shooters like William Albert Allard or David Alan Harvey shot Kodachrome 25 or 64 for those films characteristics. Still others, like myself, were straight b/w shooters. Why? Because it suited our particular vision of how we recorded the world. It's a matter of interpretation on what is reality.
No matter what dogmatic purists say, visual journalists are still creative visionaries and should have/be given a certain amount of creative license. Where that line is drawn is quite frankly, subjective.
From my POV, that line wasn't crossed in the two examples shown. What I saw was the photographers creative vision coming forth - and anyone who works capturing moments in time is typically a creative pattern at heart - why stifle that with rigid dogma that inhibits instead of nurtures creative vision - within the general confines of journalism?
Cliff Etzel - Solo Video Journalist
bluprojekt
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see what the uproar is all about. The image ran in the paper without the vignetting, then was entered into a contest run by a non-journalistic site geared toward artistic visions. Same basic image, but different rules, different audiences, different goals for the photographer.
This isn't the same thing as manipulating your portfolio to get a job, or cloning out some legs under a sign, or changing the color of the background sky. Those examples we can probably agree are over the line. But bringing out the emotion in a great image in a contest oriented toward the emotional side of photography?
Uh, no. IMO, the shooter did nothing wrong.
John Mikes
Weekend Shooter Blog
I know for sure it is not ethical to "paint" out information from an image. At least I believe that to be the case.
You notice "this particular photographer" paints out the shadow detail in many of his photographs? If you know light, silhouettes on his blog are far too dark, no shadow detail at all.
If you max out the mid tones to the image to the right, you can see the blocks of missing image. You can see the missing blocks, and no this isn't just cause its "thin" in those areas. WTF?
I'm pretty sure you can't paint out information, right? RIGHT? Am i going crazy??
Yikes, I meant move the mid-tones slider to the LEFT not RIGHT. Pardon the dyslexia.
For the record, John Mikes, PoY is run by the Missouri School of Journalism - they're very much a journalistic outlet.
Carrie, I assume this is your blog. Put that on the site. People want to know who's writing. It adds to your credibility.
For the record, I did receive proper permission from the true copyright holder to use the pictures on my blog.
I'm glad you posted this. I just had a poly sci prof, believe it or not, name of Jim Johnson, contend on my blog that he can use people's copyrighted photographs because he is not making money from his blog. There's too much of that going around.
Amy - Carrie's publication of the image would have been fair use... though its nice to ask permission regardless. Also, her comment about true copyright holder seemed to actually intone further about the (gasp) illegal lack of "Seattle Times" credit line in PDN, as almost all work shot on internships is full property of the newspaper.
For the record, John Mikes, PoY is run by the Missouri School of Journalism - they're very much a journalistic outlet.
I thought this image ran in a PDN contest?
For the record, I did receive proper permission from the true copyright holder to use the pictures on my blog.
I'm glad you posted this. I just had a poly sci prof, believe it or not, name of Jim Johnson, contend on my blog that he can use people's copyrighted photographs because he is not making money from his blog. There's too much of that going around.
You didn't have to have permission. Fair use rules were created for exactly this situation.
I work as a photojournalist for a major wire service. I am very interested in this debate because each year when PDN, POY or WPP comes out I always get into a debate with another photographer about how much burning and dodging is exceptable. Here's my thought process right now, and its interesting to read what people are saying on this blog, so thanks for that in advance.
As photojournalists, I think we do have a duty to shoot the news straight. And sometimes the light isn't pretty and sometimes the images would be better if we took something out or added something in. But we can't do that. Our job, as opposed to editorial photographers (which I was for a while) is to show people what is happening in the world. So that first image with the darkened footballers wouldn't be acceptable.
BUT I don't have a problem using it for contests like POY, PDN or WPP. None of these contests make a point of saying that you can't do what the person did. Paolo Pellegrin is a famous burner and dodger and everyone knows that. And yet he still wins. A lot. So why is that? Because I think, that unless a contest expressly points out that the image is supposed to be straight, without any photoshopping, then this is acceptable. IN CONTESTS. Not in the newpapers, and not on the wires. But I think that these contests allow photographers the ability to shape their vision and show people how they see their pictures. And it is a slippery slope. It is still not okay in any circumstance to get rid of something in a picture totally by burning it down. But where is the line before that? Its questionable and I personally don't have the answer.
All I am saying is that the people judging these contests aren't stupid. They know the people they are looking at, and even if they aren't certain, they know that some stuff has been burned, dodged, saturated, etc. So until these contests start asking for raw images to go along the final product, or have much more specific guidelines about what you can do to an image, then I say, they know they might be looking at more artistic vision that straight on photojournalism. And so beit.
There's an interesting post going on right now over on SportsShooter where this blog entry is mentioned:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=29839
The photographer who took the photo in question on this post also won a CPOY Silver for Best Sports Portfolio:
http://www.cpoy.org/?s=WinningImages&yr=61&c=29&p=2.0
Was wondering if the author of this blog had a chance to see if any of the other images in this package were taken for the Seattle Times, and if any were as heavily toned as the football photo. Would be curious to see if other winning images were over-toned as well.
What are you talking about? What an absolutely redundant comment to make about such a photo! It's at the photographers discretion to do this and most certainly part of the process! We record, but we are also creatives...this embodies the emotion the photographer is giving about the image, not the otherway around. It is an expression...right or wrong, it's not unethical!
Who are you to judge what is right or wrong...it's an emotional scene recorded and engaged in a similar way...who cares if it's night or day? The importnace is made in the portraying of the message the photographer...or even the editor...or evening the situation dictates!
It's a technique...it's a creative process and printing is as much a part of the process as the recording of the scene. It tells the story accurately, and gives the meaning exactly how the story is told.
The difference is between: "Today ~~~ football team won a game and it was played well" or "The heavens opened and shone a great victory for ~~~ football team as they took their loosing streak to a tremendous finale by ending the season for the fans...with a couragous win"!!!
It's that simple...the message is given with passion and intesity to match the feelings the XXX felt when writing or togging the game!
Maybe we should start using program so we don't give the wrong impression with an exposure we decided to choose?!? Or Take a pic and print it straight from the camera and have no printing what-so-ever...no burning...no dodging...no design theory. Wow what a boring world!
Decency and ethics are important...but so is the creative expression...creative suggestion is quite a different matter, I agree...but being a creative with a job to do, a story to tell...this photo is a great example of setting the scene. Well done to photographers who decide to create, who decide to engage....who decide to enhance their vision of life...ethically.
and plus the burned in photo is by far the better image...it demonstrates composition by using a vignette, by excluding the areas from 'view', and enhances the point of interest...the two guys hugging with passion and emotion. It delivers this, perfectly.
The tog has had to shoot fast to get this pic, and would not have been able to stage the settings or explain his/der intentions, as the pace of the job moved to fast...but that isn't to say he/she didn't already have this 'image' in mind before he/she took it!
All the burning out does is follow compositional rules that ALL togs are taught, and have been since time began...it's natures design. Simplicity, avoid mergers, use vignettes, enhance the image by letting the eye follow into or directed to the POI.
Un-ethical?!? I feel you are giving bad advice to students, and even leading them down a rocky road by using this as an example of ethics in photography.
Every photographer needs to read Ernst Gombrich's ART AND ILLUSION. EVERY photographer.
Is there another place where i can view the football photo? I would love to use it for a research essay about the ethics of sports photo manipulation.
Post a Comment
<< Home