Back in December I read the contest issue of Popular Photography & Imaging and was very displeased to see that their first place winner in the Nature category was of an image that was a compilation of multiple images on multiple days with a lot of editing done on the computer. I was upset enough that I sent them the following letter:
That the judges of the annual photography contest chose Mehmet Ozgur’s image as the first place winner for the Nature Photography section is simply insulting to the readers and to every nature photographer who has ever made an image. Certainly the image is interesting and well done, but as the caption clearly states, it is not a natural image. It is a compilation of 15 different images. The category of nature implies that the viewer could go the same place and see the same thing – as the image reports on what was there in the real world.
More and more often when a photographer captures a remarkable image the people that view it question the reality and the credibility of it. The last thing in the world the photography industry needs is publications letting created images be judged alongside true images and leading the readers to accept that altering images is the ethical thing to do.
----------A short while later I received a reply that the editors wanted to publish my letter, but since the contest was already in the past they wanted to edit it to make it more about Photoshop misuse. They also requested that I send them a photo to illustrate my point about real images being questioned. In response I sent them my image of the goats on top of the ridge during the balloon rally. So now we get to today,and the new issue of Popular Photography arrives in my mailbox and my letter and photo are displayed pretty prominently on the letters page - with the text in bold and a larger font than anything else on the page. Not exactly the best way to get published in a national magazine, but it is published and I am getting paid for the image use.
I could not find the letters page on their web site, but they do have a large portion of their magazine on-line at Popular Photography & Imaging
Here is the edited version of the letter:
As a professional photojournalist, I find that the credibility of photographs as truth is being destroyed by overzealous Photoshop junkies who feel the need to "improve on" or create their own reality. Anybody with a camera and computer software can present images based solely on impact, instead of reality. More and more often when a photographer captures a remarkable image people question the credibility of it.
For instance, many ask me if I added the balloons to this shot. I didn't. This is exactly what my camera captured at the Red Rock Balloon Rally Near Gallup, New Mexic, this past December. As far as I am concerned, altering an image is not an ethical thing to do.
5 comments:
I like the original one better, but at least my favorite line was published...Photoshop junkies... I love it. Great letter!
You need to listen to the Bob Dylan song, "Ballad of a Thin Man".
"Because something is happening here But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?" Dylan is singing about critics who do not understand his music. The same could be said about some snobbish photographers. The ones who will not use autofocus, in-camera metering, and refuse to alter the image in Photoshop. Fella, the times they are a changin'. I will do as I please with Photoshop and not lose any sleep.
Wow. I am so impressed with this comment. It is sent anonymously, and it quotes Bob Dylan (I heard he might be getting back together...).
Fella... you assume a lot about me. I never said anything about Auto-focus, in camera metering, embracing digital images or the like. You think I am a snob because I think that images presented in a NATURE category in Photography contest should be true to what is NATURALLY there, and because I think that photography is losing all creditability because people are misrepresenting their altered images as being reality?
Readers rely on truthful images to know about world events. Look at the flack that Rueters has had to deal with over the altered images from Iraq. Or older than that, the respected photographer from the LA Times that added some extra people into a scene for more dramatic impact. The LA Times guy was fired before the end of the day.
I have been working in the photography industry for 20 years now. I have embraced the new technology as a means to make better images. Photoshop can do that - enhance the color, clarity and detail of a recorded image. But when image content is altered, added, deleted, and whatever else can be done it is no longer a photograph. It is no longer a representation of the real world.
If you have to use computer tools to add and manipulate things to make your photos interesting I would submit that you are not a photographer - but a graphic artist. If you want to be a photographer then get it right in the camera, in the real world.
Try telling an editor at ANY newspaper in the entire country that you think it is fine to manipulate reality in the images you create and see how much you get published and how often you get a paycheck.
(From the National Press Photographer's Code of Ethics - line item 6): Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.
Hey Mr. Jones,
I'm the anonymous dude that wrote the letter you replied to. I am very sorry if you felt insulted.
You should take pride in your honesty when it applies to photojournalism. I agree that news photographs should never be altered (other than lighting correction) to mis-represent the truth.
I was taking photographs before you were born and I have darkroom experience and have done many weddings. I've been all through Europe and the U.S. taking photos. I think digital cameras and Photoshop are wonderful tools for photography.
I just took offense at your statement that altering "any" image is unethical. C'mon, if I want to take a telephone pole out of an image or remove a pimple, do you really think that is unethical? I've done things with Photoshop that were impossible back when I got my first SLR back in the 60s. I just run into so many photographers that take themselves too seriously.
I actually took the time to look at some of your photographs and I came away very impressed.
I also found it interesting that Bob Dylan (I'm a huge fan) went to school at the University of Minnesota (are you not a Golden Gopher?) and that he claimed (not true) that he once lived in Gallup, NM.
I sincerely wish you much success in your profession. I do, however, feel that I am indeed a photographer in spite of the fact that I enhance my images in Photoshop. I would make a lousy graphic artist.
Oh, and I send this as anonymous because I can.
Best Wishes, Mr. Jones!
A picture is worth a thousand words. Sadly, for some this is no longer true. A photojournalist must never alter a photograph to portray a false perception. Truth in journalism and freedom of speech make America great.
Post a Comment
Post a Comment