Photo Ethnics in A Brave New World
by Suzanne Salvo
“There were the huge printing shops with their sub-editors, their typography experts, and their elaborately equipped studios for the faking of photographs” - 1984
Photo manipulation existed long before the age of digital photography, as this famous George Orwell quote written in 1949 implies. Photo technology may have changed since his day, but does that mean the ethics behind photo manipulation has also changed?
When George Orwell wrote those words nearly 60 years ago, news photography was still in its early years. Cameras were still huge and heavy. Photojournalists carried sacks of flashbulbs that had to be painstakingly changed out with each exposure. In the pre-digital world, it took hours in the darkroom to produce a single print.
And it took many more hours to successfully alter an image before Photoshop made it child’s play. With only pre-digital technology, even experts with years of experience had trouble making photo changes that could pass for real. But that didn’t stop them from trying, and succeeding.
What we now call photography was invented around the mid 1800s. For the first 50 years there were hardly any amateurs and only a few “professionals” were willing to operate the giant, finicky, and not very portable machines. At the beginning of the 1900s that changed when George Eastman developed the technology of film to replace the cumbersome photographic plates used up until then. Cameras became smaller, more portable and quicker to use, heralding in the age of photojournalism. For the first time in history on-the-scene, real life visual coverage of events and breaking news was possible, and people just couldn’t get enough of it. High public interest and the subsequent money it spawned created heated competition among photojournalist. That led to some extremely unorthodox photo-reporting techniques.
Test your ethics: what would you do?
Newspaper photographers back in the 20s, 30s and 40s were well known for their exceedingly competitive and questionable ethical practices. There are numerousstories of photojournalists manipulating crime scenes to make more dynamic images. Some were know to carry teddy bears or dolls in their camera bags to use in photos of house fires or train wrecks. By implying a child was involved, the image became emotionally charged and more poignant, which helped sell more papers. There are even ocumented reports of corpses being repositioned to make better photo compositions. Ask yourself: Is it OK for a photographer to change where he/she stands to take a newsphoto if that change provides a more dynamic, interesting view? What if the change of position naturally emphasizes only one aspect of the scene over other important details?
Politicians have long recognized the power of the image for propaganda purposes. Some have tried to literally change history by changing photographs. In one of the better known examples, Stalin had former comrades deemed enemies eradicated from life and either cropped out or “photoshopped” out of existing images. On the other end of the political ethics scale is the photo treatment of former US President Franklin Roosevelt. Very few photos exist showing FDR as disabled. In most cases his image was shot or cropped to show him only from the waist up. As a result a large percentage of the American public was unaware that he was severely crippled. Ask yourself: Is cropping to fit a publication&’s format acceptable? Does cropping constitute unethical manipulation in one or both of the above political scenarios? Does the fact that in the case of FDR it was done “to be nice” change the ethical consideration?
Hard news was not the only thing being manipulated in images in the pre-digital world. The classic depression era photos by Margaret Bourke-White and Lewis Hine are known to have been posed by the photographer in many instances. Ask yourself: Using real people and real settings, the photographer directs a subject to straighten his tie, or asks the subject to look in a certain direction, or removes a distracting piece of trash in the background - is that unethical? Does it make the intended message less true? Knowing the subjects and the situations were real but posed, does it make the image less compelling to you? Does it render the image ethically unusable? Some of these images are credited with helping to rewrite the child labor laws in the USA. When the cause is just, or is “news”, does the amount of photo manipulation allowable change?
The public’s fascination with photography has led to some interesting and sometimes outlandish photo alterations. In 1917 Elsie Wright, 15, borrowed her father’s camera and innocently took pictures of some paper-cutout fairies. She used a simple hat-pin devise to cause the cutouts to fall over during the exposure. On the final print this movement made it look like the fairies were realistically dancing. By a strange twist of fate, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, became involved in the fairy story lending it credibility. The photos became internationally well known and for many years were widely believed to be proof of the existence of fairies. In more modern times images of The Loch Ness Monster, now largely held to be fakes, have been used to promote Scottish tourism. Question: Is it ethical to alter an image destined only for marketing or advertising purposes? Or should the same guidelines apply to both news and photo illustrations?
Each of the above photo altering scenarios was accomplished without a pixel in sight, using film, negatives and darkroom echniques. It is now much easier to alter images, making the temptation to do so greater. The question communicators face today is deciding if and how much they should manipulate, not is it possible to manipulate.
Has the ethics behind photo usage changed for corporate communicators? Digital technology didn’t create the ethical dilemma, it only put a big spotlight on it. I’ve asked more questions than I’ve answered in this article. Where ethics are concerned there are seldom clear-cut answers and that is certainly true with photo manipulation ethics.
The subject has sparked a huge debate with widely opposing viewpoints. The topic is so hot, Hollywood has picked up on it in films like Flags of Our Fathers and Spiderman III. As a professional communicator who uses images, you have a stake in the outcome of the debate. Won’t you join the conversation regarding photo ethics? Post your comments here.
And I hope you will join me at the IABC EuroComm. “Seeing is NOT believing.” See you there.
Suzanne Salvo and her husband/partner Chris are co-owners of Salvo Photography, an international award-winning studio with bases in Italy and the U.S. The Salvos has traveled to nearly 60 countries on assignments ranging from ad campaigns, annual reports and editorial. At IABC, Suzanne has served on the 2003-2004 International Executive Board and she is a past president of IABC/ Houston, which named her Volunteer of the Year in 2002. Suzanne writes an informative on-line monthly column, called “Visually Speaking” in IABC’s CW Bulletin, conducts action-packed workshops on photo topics throughout North America and Europe and is a multiple Gold Quill winner. Suzanne is the recipient of the 2007 IABC Chairman’s Award.
~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne will be speaking at the EuroComm conference on:
Seeing is NOT Believing. Real world Photo Manipulation Ethics
We live in a photoshop world where pyramids can be moved to suit a layout and CEOs enjoy instant weight loss and wrinkle removal - until they get caught. Photos are a great way to bolster your company’s brand and positively affect reputation, right? Right – unless an image has been inappropriately manipulated. The fallout can be costly in terms of company brand and the bottomline. When is it OK legally and/or ethically to manipulate and when is it not? What are the consequences to your company’s reputation?
In this session you will learn:
• How to differentiate between photojournalism and photo illustration
• What the photonews groups advise
• Practical quidelines for when, where and how much manipulation is acceptable
• What companies are doing right now to insure their reputation is protected
