Comments on: Badge of Honor: The Case for Better Labeling in Photojournalism http://rising.blackstar.com/badge-of-honor-the-case-for-better-labling-in-photojournalism.html Professional Photography Blog Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:56:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Hopperhttp://rising.blackstar.com/badge-of-honor-the-case-for-better-labling-in-photojournalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-5160 Hopper Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:31:00 +0000 http://rising.blackstar.com/?p=1426#comment-5160 I think that a distinction needs to be made between digital manipulation and digitally doing what used to be done with an enlarger. In the days of film, did anyone ever think that it was our duty to inform readers that a photo was cropped? Did we need to explain why we chose to shoot something in color instead of black and white? Did we need to explain our choices of contrast filters? Every photojournalist I know kept a warming filter welded to their lenses when shooting color slides. Why should digital tonal correction and sharpening come under scrutiny when burning and dodging were never an issue back in the day? Yes, who are we to decide where the line lies between manipulation and just making a picture look good? I don't know. But at some point, a modicum of common sense needs to come into play. I think that a distinction needs to be made between digital manipulation and digitally doing what used to be done with an enlarger. In the days of film, did anyone ever think that it was our duty to inform readers that a photo was cropped? Did we need to explain why we chose to shoot something in color instead of black and white? Did we need to explain our choices of contrast filters? Every photojournalist I know kept a warming filter welded to their lenses when shooting color slides. Why should digital tonal correction and sharpening come under scrutiny when burning and dodging were never an issue back in the day? Yes, who are we to decide where the line lies between manipulation and just making a picture look good? I don't know. But at some point, a modicum of common sense needs to come into play.

]]> By: Nachohttp://rising.blackstar.com/badge-of-honor-the-case-for-better-labling-in-photojournalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-2273 Nacho Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:03:36 +0000 http://rising.blackstar.com/?p=1426#comment-2273 I agree that in photojournalism work we need a healthy dose of honesty, clear ethics, and sense of transparency. But as Brad noted above, the key question is: where is the threshold that is helpful and doesn't just become too much info., or harmful? I'd rather err on the side of too much info. I think that that in an uncertain world, one that increasingly has learned the need to be suspicious of mediated content, we also have a duty to inform and educate to why we do what we do, how we do it, why it matters, and how this is good. I do think Brad is right in that we also need to be careful that a hyper response has its own consequences that double back on us.That threshold is somewhat relative to what we shoot, when, how, and what promises direct or implicit are made about the product, and the use we intend. Which ultimately means that we have to make sure that Ethics is not something left for the end of the process, as a last minute consideration, like the last stamp in an assembly-line model of photojournalistic production.Thanks,Nacho I agree that in photojournalism work we need a healthy dose of honesty, clear ethics, and sense of transparency. But as Brad noted above, the key question is: where is the threshold that is helpful and doesn't just become too much info., or harmful? I'd rather err on the side of too much info. I think that that in an uncertain world, one that increasingly has learned the need to be suspicious of mediated content, we also have a duty to inform and educate to why we do what we do, how we do it, why it matters, and how this is good. I do think Brad is right in that we also need to be careful that a hyper response has its own consequences that double back on us.

That threshold is somewhat relative to what we shoot, when, how, and what promises direct or implicit are made about the product, and the use we intend. Which ultimately means that we have to make sure that Ethics is not something left for the end of the process, as a last minute consideration, like the last stamp in an assembly-line model of photojournalistic production.

Thanks,

Nacho

]]> By: Bradhttp://rising.blackstar.com/badge-of-honor-the-case-for-better-labling-in-photojournalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-2158 Brad Mon, 08 Dec 2008 03:57:50 +0000 http://rising.blackstar.com/?p=1426#comment-2158 I can definitely see where this is coming from & I do think it makes sense to a point but doesn't that kind of defeat at least some of the purpose of correcting images in the first place? If I smooth a little bit of noise in the shadows (because it wasn't there in the real life scene) do i really need to tell the world I've edited my image? There would be know way for people to tell whether you've removed a ton of noise all through the image because you sucked & blew your shot or if you just touched up a tiny little bit in one small area so I think the reader would automatically assume the worst. I think that may even make things worse because every time someone see's a little letter combination all they'll understand is that the photo has been edited. To borrow a famous analogy, I think they may end up concentrating so much on the tree that they won't be able to see the forest anymore. Of course I could be way off base & this may help the industry but I guess I'm just weary due to how weak the "business" of photojournalism is at the moment (meaning, how many newspaper staff shooters are left in the country, like 5?). I can definitely see where this is coming from & I do think it makes sense to a point but doesn't that kind of defeat at least some of the purpose of correcting images in the first place? If I smooth a little bit of noise in the shadows (because it wasn't there in the real life scene) do i really need to tell the world I've edited my image? There would be know way for people to tell whether you've removed a ton of noise all through the image because you sucked & blew your shot or if you just touched up a tiny little bit in one small area so I think the reader would automatically assume the worst. I think that may even make things worse because every time someone see's a little letter combination all they'll understand is that the photo has been edited. To borrow a famous analogy, I think they may end up concentrating so much on the tree that they won't be able to see the forest anymore. Of course I could be way off base & this may help the industry but I guess I'm just weary due to how weak the "business" of photojournalism is at the moment (meaning, how many newspaper staff shooters are left in the country, like 5?).

]]>