[Leica] Photoshop vs Photojournalism

[ricc at embarqmail.com (Ric Carter)]

Well ranted!!

ric


On Apr 22, 2009, at 7:44 PM, Greg Rubenstein wrote:

> Maybe I've missed something in this thread, but even back when I was a
> photojournalist weren't we marketing and publishing our vision/points
> of view -- as well as that of our editors? Weren't we the
> temperamental "artistes" and consciences of the hard-boiled newsroom.
> (Remember the TV show, "Lou Grant," the photographer, "Animal"?)
>
> We shot and used leading lines; light, dramatic or flat; to show the
> subject, story, event as we saw it or, perhaps, as our editor, art
> director or publisher may have instructed us. Or, given the number of
> shots we'd submit, they chose the one that best fit their points of
> view.
>
> In the darkroom, we dodged, burned and balanced contrast and color as
> best we could to further help viewers see what we saw, or what the
> editors and art directors wanted us to show. Remember the heavy
> burning at the edges so stylish back in the 70s? Again, the choice of
> what to run was often someone else's -- and may not have quite
> represented the event though it was "honest" in the sense that it was
> something we saw.
>
> I even remember the days of photo illustrations, having used Exacto
> knives, multiple exposures and such to created these images myself --
> and CLEARLY LABELING them as such at the start of a caption and in
> credit lines. And, besides, even with Photoshop, who today can create
> the magical photo images/illustrations people such as Jerry Uelsmann
> and Michael Tcherevkov (check both spellings) turned out?
>
> While Photoshop as a tool has made it easier for people --
> photographers, editors, artists and such -- to mislead and cheat, I
> find our caterwauling about purity a bit disturbing and hypocritical
> in light of what we have done -- and do -- when shooting film, when
> processing film and when printing negatives.
>
> I do not excuse adding missiles, intensifying smoke, changing the
> color of swimming trunks or putting one person's head on another body,
> but I must wonder if my take on an event by the angle from which I
> shot, the light I preferred (or added with a flash), the editor's
> instructions I followed, or burning I did is a heck of a lot more
> honest and pure than what we see now.
>
> A case in point, though I cannot find the URL, was an article in Photo
> District News a few years back that, essentially, asked whether
> demonstrations caused photographers of if photographers caused
> demonstrations. A photo of Palestinian demonstrators lobbing Molotov
> Cocktails was shown from two angles. The widely published photo showed
> members of an angry mob throwing  homemade bombs seemingly at targets.
> A shot from another angle showed a gaggle of photographers, and
> smiling (maybe even amused) bystanders watching the photographers and
> "the mob" throwing the cocktails into a rubble-strewn lot. Both photos
> were accurate in what they showed, but how accurate was the message
> sent in that example?
>
> The issue we've been discussing and will continue to discuss is a heck
> of a lot bigger than Photoshop. Photoshop, more partisan people
> (photographers included) and agenda-drive publications simply make it
> easier to cheat now than before. And, as before, the cheaters are
> generally outed -- maybe even more quickly today because of Photoshop
> and a technically savvy viewing public -- but not before the
> credibility of "honest" photographers and others is damaged.
>
> End of rant.
>
> Greg Rubenstein
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information