Ethics & Morality in Photography

[Dylan & Marianne]

Zollo, with photography there is a special duty of care, over and above the duty of care that applies to (say) a written statement, or a sound recording, or a drawing. People generally believe that photographs have particular veracity - "seeing is believing" goes the saying. People trust photographs more than pretty much any other medium. That means that you, as the photographer, are in a position of special trust. Because of the enhanced ability you have to lie (i.e., because of your position of trust) it is especially important that you try your best to tell the truth.

Once again with regard to landscapes - that's your particular point of view and I respect that. And I agree with Zollo full heartedly on this point. I don't think any fine art landscape photographer has ever claimed they are bringing you unadultered truth in a scene. Another aspect to consider (again in landscapes) is that viewing an image relies entirely on one sense alone - vision. By doing things such as long exposure and manipulation of images, you can sometimes make an attempt to bring the person there to feel a scene whether it be real or imaginery. In the scene below, the 'feel' of the scene was painful whipping of sand blowing past me - take a simple unmanipulated snap and you get absolutely no sense of it. I tried (not very successfully I might add) to get a sense of that motion with a longer exposure and bring out the moving tendrils of dust. As for the rest of the scene - yes it was taken in Iceland - do I claim this is how it looked like? No- but it's what I would like people to imagine being in another planet which was how I felt while standing there. I personally don't feel I've done anything remotely unethical or immoral (I respect that you might, but I thought I'd at least make an explanation as to why I don't agree)

[Tannin]

Dylan, you are getting very close to my own view when you start talking about manipulation. I have absolutely no problem with manipulation of a photograph! It is all in the intent. Where, as with your own work, there is no intent to present the result as anything but what it is - fiction with some relationship to the underlying realities (just as a novel typically bears some relationship to the real world of people) - then the question really doesn't arise. Where the manipulation is designed to communicate more clearly (for example, by removing that accidental foot in the frame of the sport shot, which only distracts the viewer from the reality of the moment), I fully support it (subject to judgment on individual circumstances, of course). The problem arises where the photograph is presented as reality, rather than as fiction.

Does this mean that all images not clearly marked as "fiction" must be drab, plain pictures that make Socialist Realism look like Laugh-In?

No!

Look at the example of Claude Monet, who went to a lot of trouble to paint pictures that, on one level, were significant distortion of reality. Nevertheless, Monet is regarded as one of the true greats of all time because his paintings tell a larger truth - Monet was prepared to sacrifice anything else in order to shout out the truth about the thing he loved and understood best - light.

Summary: it's not what you do, it is why you do it.

[Dylan & Marianne]

thanks for the explanation tony

[Scotty72]

Dylan, you are getting very close to my own view when you start talking about manipulation. I have absolutely no problem with manipulation of a photograph! It is all in the intent. Where, as with your own work, there is no intent to present the result as anything but what it is - fiction with some relationship to the underlying realities (just as a novel typically bears some relationship to the real world of people) - then the question really doesn't arise. Where the manipulation is designed to communicate more clearly (for example, by removing that accidental foot in the frame of the sport shot, which only distracts the viewer from the reality of the moment), I fully support it (subject to judgment on individual circumstances, of course). The problem arises where the photograph is presented as reality, rather than as fiction.

Does this mean that all images not clearly marked as "fiction" must be drab, plain pictures that make Socialist Realism look like Laugh-In?

No!

Look at the example of Claude Monet, who went to a lot of trouble to paint pictures that, on one level, were significant distortion of reality. Nevertheless, Monet is regarded as one of the true greats of all time because his paintings tell a larger truth - Monet was prepared to sacrifice anything else in order to shout out the truth about the thing he loved and understood best - light.

Summary: it's not what you do, it is why you do it.

Is a girl who puts on make up to cover skin blemishes guilty of distorting reality - should she be labelled as a work of art / fiction?

[colinbm]

Ethics & Morality in Photography ??
" It is only illegal if you get caught "
Col

[Tannin]

Is a girl who puts on make up to cover skin blemishes guilty of distorting reality - should she be labelled as a work of art / fiction?

Too right! Hell, when I was doing my teacher training, I once overheard a couple of students discussing something of no particular interest to me - who was going to supervise them during their spare period, or some such.

"Yeah, it's Miss Hudson"

"Who?"

"You know - the one with the plastic face"

"Oh her. Right"

I nearly had the sort of accident in my trousers I hadn't experienced since I was at kindergarten! I managed to keep on staring out the window and keep a poker face somehow. I was only a student doing teaching rounds so I was wasn't familiar with the names of more than a half-dozen staff members, but the moment that Year 8 kid said "the plastic face" I knew exactly who they meant.

So far as I know, she had a perfectly normal complexion; apparently she just didn't feel dressed with less than half a pound of assorted powder, lipstick, blusher, eyeliner, foundation, eyeshadow, and for all I know pre-stressed concrete on her face.

Pity I don't have her address, I could send her some appropriately over-processed landscape photographs. I'm sure she would love them.

[jim]

Zollo, with photography there is a special duty of care, over and above the duty of care that applies to (say) a written statement, or a sound recording, or a drawing. People generally believe that photographs have particular veracity - "seeing is believing" goes the saying. People trust photographs more than pretty much any other medium. That means that you, as the photographer, are in a position of special trust. Because of the enhanced ability you have to lie (i.e., because of your position of trust) it is especially important that you try your best to tell the truth.

While I completely approve the sentiment, is this really true any more? I think it was shaky in 1981 when people assumed Galen Rowell's Potala Palace photo http://www.mountainsoftravelphotos.c...%20Rainbow.jpg was made with a rainbow filter. Now that nearly everybodies first reaction to getting a copy of Photoshop is—well you know what it is before people learn some restraint—is it not a lost cause? Perhaps we have now reached a point where nobody places any trust in photographs any more.

[kiwi]

Good point Jim, I expect most when looking at a great or unusual photo will suspect digital manipulation first and skill and art second

[Scotty72]

Too right! Hell, when I was doing my teacher training, I once overheard a couple of students discussing something of no particular interest to me - who was going to supervise them during their spare period, or some such.

"Yeah, it's Miss Hudson"

"Who?"

"You know - the one with the plastic face"

"Oh her. Right"

I nearly had the sort of accident in my trousers I hadn't experienced since I was at kindergarten! I managed to keep on staring out the window and keep a poker face somehow. I was only a student doing teaching rounds so I was wasn't familiar with the names of more than a half-dozen staff members, but the moment that Year 8 kid said "the plastic face" I knew exactly who they meant.

So far as I know, she had a perfectly normal complexion; apparently she just didn't feel dressed with less than half a pound of assorted powder, lipstick, blusher, eyeliner, foundation, eyeshadow, and for all I know pre-stressed concrete on her face.

Pity I don't have her address, I could send her some appropriately over-processed landscape photographs. I'm sure she would love them.

Hmmm!

What about the photographer who asks a brother and sister who can't stand each other to smile in the family photo, this is presenting something that is unnatural / not real? To portray this family as happy would be a total fabrication.

Or should he take the photo of them swapping raging insults / punches?

[jim]

Hmmm!

What about the photographer who asks a brother and sister who can't stand each other to smile in the family photo, this is presenting something that is unnatural / not real? To portray this family as happy would be a total fabrication.

Or should he take the photo of them swapping raging insults / punches?

In what context Scotty? Credit people with some sophistication (we've forced it on them after all) If it's a formal portrait nobody will draw any conclusions. If it appears in National Geographic then maybe the unnatural smiles would count as misrepresentation.

[kiwi]

Or maybe the photographer slipped on a banana and they both smile and click.

Move on, nothing to see with this example

[Tannin]

^ Bananas don't click, they squish.

[Tommo1965]

one issue I have is people perception that my images have been photo-shopped..a term that they use because the image looks better than their point and shoot...LOL

my wife will always comment that it been "shopped" and as I've manipulated it within the PC..so it doesn't count..BAH...I say

the other day I was taking a shot of the early morning sunrise..bright orange cloud etc..I choose to expose for the bright part of the image knowing later I could reclaim the foreground in PP...once highlight detail is lost..its never coming back ...so with out a ND grad..I made a decsion to sacrifice a part of the image to later push in CC.

is there anything wrong in that ?

I normally add some pop to my images... some dont need it..others do...its what we do is it not?

is pushing a image is PP cheating..or are we just doing what Photographers have been doing for ages in the darkroom....dodge and burn are not a Photoshop invention are they ?

[Scotty72]

In what context Scotty? Credit people with some sophistication (we've forced it on them after all) If it's a formal portrait nobody will draw any conclusions. If it appears in National Geographic then maybe the unnatural smiles would count as misrepresentation.

What about all those 'happy couple' portraits of Charles and Diana that were certainly used to misrepresent history and for commercial purposes to sell all sorts of memorabilia.

Now, those are photographers that ought to be sued then, shot!

[Tannin]

the other day I was taking a shot of the early morning sunrise..bright orange cloud etc. ..... is pushing a image is PP cheating..or are we just doing what Photographers have been doing for ages in the darkroom....dodge and burn are not a Photoshop invention are they ?

I think you are missing the point at issue. The techniques you use are irrelevant to the final result (or so I maintain), exactly as whether you decide to use a brush or a palate knife with oil paint on canvas is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how you get there. The important question is was your final result honest?

[jim]

You might compare two common techniques of photographic manipulation.

In the first case you shoot a landscape and decide, for whatever reason, that it would look better in black and white. So you render it as a monochrome image (I'm going to ignore the many subsequent manipulations it is possible to make to a black and white picture). Is this dishonest? It's not, because nobody, not even a five year old will think you're photographing a truly black and white world. Everybody will understand that a black and white image is either an inevitable artefact of the photographic process, or an attempt to concentrate the viewers attention on some pictorial information (tones and subject matter) by excluding other information (colour). Your five year old may not put it exactly that way, but they will understand it, exactly that way.

In the second case you photograph the very same landscape, and decide that it looks weak and would benefit from darkening the sky one and a half stops in Photoshop. Is this dishonest? I submit that while your intentions may be good in this one instance, in the aggregate when everyone's doing it, it becomes flagrantly dishonest and harmful. On the one hand, the more photographers pump up the saturation and contrast in their images (So that they'll "pop". Lord I hate that word.) the more people lose the ability to appreciate the huge depth and subtlty of real light, the great and intricately nuanced complexity of the real world. You get to the point where any photo that hasn't been turned into a page from a comic book looks dull.

On the other hand, you will be contributing (in a bad way) to the now enormous sophistication of your viewers. While they now expect an image to jump out and grab them by the throat, they no longer place any trust in photographs to accurately reflect reality. So when somebody does produce an honest picture of something awesome, nobody reacts with awe, they react with "nice photoshop". That's a loss for everybody, though I'm afraid the chickens have well and truly flown the coop on that one.

On the third hand (I'm a Science Fiction aficionado) you will annoy Tannin, who seems to be extremely sensitive to any departure from accuracy in the depiction of light and colour. I do believe it actually hurts his eyes. Myself I'm less perceptive and more tolerant.

[Tommo1965]

Jim

my camera doesn't have the DR that my eyes have...so pushing a image in PP is quite often getting it to where we saw it in the first instance.... quite often a image looks washed out..or lacks contrast due to the camera metering the shot to its 18% grey....for me thats not good enough..so manipulating a image in PP to get better saturation/contrast { Pop } is acceptable Id say.

[Kym]

According to the posts here Ansel Adams was most 'dishonest' due to the level of DR manipulations

[Xenedis]

i think a photographer should use any tool at their disposal to get a image to where they want it to be.. personally I dont take photos to reflect real life....I want to add something of my own to the image..

Most of the photography in which I engage does not require the depiction of absolute truth.

If we want to get really picky, every single digital image out there, even if it came straight from the camera, is a distortion of reality. JPG files (8-bit) can only represent 256 levels of brightness, and only around 16.7 million colours. The reality is that the human eye is far more powerful than that.

Cameras simply cannot tell the absolute truth about what they capture, because there are technical limitations.

As for my own photography, I process my images. I clone out undesirable elements. I selectively darken, lighten, (de)saturate, increase contrast/detail and sharpen.

I process my images the way I like, and what's great about it is that nobody is owed an explanation.

[Xenedis]

According to the posts here Ansel Adams was most 'dishonest' due to the level of DR manipulations

I had Ansel Adams in mind when reading this discussion.

It strikes me as a curious situation where people these days are inclined to accuse others of digital manipulation, when they are completely ignorant of the fact that people have been manipulating images since the early days of photography, and that just because it came from a film camera and was processed in a wet darkroom, doesn't mean it's any more 'pure' than whatever came from a digital camera and was processed in an Adobe 'darkroom'.

Image manipulation in itself is not a bad thing. The context is critical to whether the manipulation is good or bad.