The other day I received and e-mail in error. It would seem that Paul Lester is a common name for photographers. There’s Paul Lester the golf photographer. There’s Paul Lester the photography teacher. And there’s Paul Lester the philosophical photographer … that’s me. 
Anyway, I received a nice e-mail from a gentleman who is doing a documentary inspired by Robert Capa’s photo: The Falling Soldier. The documentary will not be about the photo itself, but more about the controversy surrounding it, or the ethical questions that arose when someone questioned the authenticity of the image, saying that it was staged, some even having suggested that the man was shot while he was posing.
So, here is a portion of the e-mail:
At this early stage we are considering the scope of the documentary. We are
thinking the documentary would consist of interviews with writers, journalists,
art curators, critics and of course photographers. This would tie around the
main narrative, which would be following a contemporary photographer as they
capture pictures from real life and also experiment with staging some images.
Even after letting Joe know that I was not the guy that he was looking for, he still wanted my opinion. I told him that I’d make it a blog post so that he could get the opinions of those sage visitors that I have. He thought that it was a great idea!
A blog post sounds fantastic. Basically the question we have is: to what extent, if any, do photojournalists have the right to stage pictures, or direct their subjects? Is it okay if it is helping to reflect a truer picture of the place they are reporting from? Is it okay if it’s for the sake of creating a more profound, poetic, engaging photograph?
To make sure that I had the right definitions, I looked up the word ethics and found that it is a set of moral principals relating to a specified group or field. Secondly, I went a bit deeper and looked up the moral: concerned with the principals of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human behavior.
OK, now that that is out of the way. What do I think? I think that photojournalist do not have the right to stage pictures; however, I don’t see the harm in a small bit of directing. That is if a photojournalist is observing an event and a person makes a gesture that the PJ just happened to miss, I think that asking the person to repeat the gesture would be just fine. I think this because the gesture did happen, unprompted and so was true to the situation; the photographer just missed it. I see nothing wrong with a do-over. However, to stage something for dramatic effect or perhaps to drive home a point, far exceeds what “I” would consider ethical. But, it really comes down to the rules, regulations, etc of the agency who is doing the reporting. For example, Time magazine may have a standards book by which every photographer must follow. Meanwhile, on the other side of town, The National Enquirer has no such thing or their book is must thinner.
In judging right and wrong there are no global standards across magazines, I believe. One magazine, by their bylaws, standards, and guidelines may consider it unethical to manipulate a photo in any way, whilst another might consider minor touch-up to be fine, and yet another would allow for cloning, removing, or adding of certain features to make the story a bit more sensational, even at the expense of being real or ‘true’.
To further complicate the picture, Joe asked: Is it okay if it’s for the sake of creating a more profound, poetic, engaging photograph? Now, I think, we’ve moved from the realm of ‘straight’ reportage to interpretation of the events to creating art, but perhaps not. That is not to say that a PJ cannot create touching, poignant, engaging, moving, and even poetic photographs, but I think that these must be discovered, not staged or created. Perhaps, given time, lighting, perspective, and situation, these photographs would be discovered in situ.
In the end, the community at large doesn’t seem to trust photographs anymore, even having coined a new ‘verb’: I’ll bet that picture has been “Photoshopped”! So, all that I can say on the matter is that I, going by my guiding principles, would not feel comfortable with staging a shot even if instructed to by my magazine.
What do you think? Does staging an event, even if it is probable that it could happen, diminish the truthfulness of the image? Is it ethical?
Related Posts :
Back in the late 50's and early 60's there was a television show named, To Tell The Truth. ...
I was watching a documentary, Half Past Autumn, about Gordon Parks. He led an extraordinary li ...
Moonrise Here are links to several listings that seem to best fit your wish list. You can clic ...
18 Responses to “By request: Photography and ethics questions.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
In my opinion, the issue has much to do with disclosure. If an image has been staged or “photoshopped” and is being presented as a historical depiction, an actual event, person or place then it should be clearly labeled as being “altered” or as a “depiction” for whatever reasons. The lack of trust of photographers is fed by a lack of standards for disclosure.
Quite a heavy task you have set here Paul. Questions of ethics and morality have formed the basis of many debates throughout history.
Without wanting to get too deep I would say that a journalist’s intent plays a role but as a viewer we have no way of being privy to that information. What I mean is that if a journalist stages a photograph because he/she truly believes that the story must be told than that may be ok. As opposed to the journalist who stages a shot just to win a pulitzer or to deliberately mislead people as journos have done in the past.
From my own experience, ethics and morality in journalism is highly questionable be it in photography, print or video. It should always be remembered that a good journalist can manipulate his/her audience without staging, lying or even directing. Just as the reader will apply his or her own biases and filters so too does the journalist whether intentionally or subconsciously.
As I see it we live in an age where never before in the history of mankind have we had access to greater amounts of information but it’s probably all for nought as we are none the wiser when it comes to discerning truth from fiction.
When I view a photograph I view it as nothing more than a photograph regardless of the alleged context. I tune in to the feelings and thoughts that the image evokes in me and I leave it at that. I am much too stupid and I suspect, ignorant (as one photog I know of would no doubt call me) to take it any further than that.
Does staging an event diminish the truth? That depends on whose truth we’re talking about I imagine. Is it ethical? That seems like a “yes or no” question but I don’t know if it is that simple. I would need to ponder this a bit longer I think.
@Earl: What constitutes altered? What about adjustments to contrast and color saturation? These are alterations, true? I certainly agree, but I’m not sure to as what degree these can go without being disclosed. If it is depicted, then 100% of the time it should be disclosed.
@Paul: Good question. I don’t think adjustments to contrast or color saturation changes the actual depiction of the photo (I know some “adjustments” can alter the pixels). Perhaps if pixels have been removed, moved or added? In this area it quickly gets gray.
Well, just to complicate the issue, the transformation of the event into a framed 2D representation means that it has been ‘altered.’ What did you leave out when you framed it? What is hidden by the flattening and the effects of, say, a telephoto or wide-angle lens?
However, I agree with Earl: disclosure is key. No one is gonna be upset if contrast and such are altered, but the ‘cloning’ and such like are big time issues for me. Once you go there, it’s not photojournalism any longer, it’s ‘art.’
@Chris: Certainly framing it alters reality by our choice of what we decided to show, or not show. I think that what we are talking about here is not what or how we frame something, but about the reality of what is depicted within that frame. Was it staged? Was it directed? Or did it just happen? Regarding contrast, boosting contrast can give a photo an entirely different feel. Very low contrast can bring a calming effect, very high, and it’s a different feeling. I’ve seen discussions about this elsewhere. There are some purist who believe that nothing should be changed when it comes out of the camera.
You bring up another good point about the choice of lenses. This can have a dramatic affect on the scene. However, the photographer has to have some latitude to do her work and drive the point home, whatever that point is.
Too me, all pictured are staged to some extent, and the photographer is a vital part of this stage. Even if you don’t move or direct anything on the scene, you make decisions about position, angles, light, colour and timing. With this at hand, you can pretty much tell anything. What is objective in that. If you want objectivity, you have to agree on rules for how to capture an image, like for passport photography.
There is a step from “staged” to altered, since you can alter the reality so much more with Photoshop and similar tools.
On the question if altered pictures are okay in photojournalism, you could also ask if it is allowed to let your pictures be biased by what you’re trying to tell with them, what story to cover. Would you photograph smiling people if covering a story about poverty, hardly. You have to filter out those elements in the picture that not supports the story.
Then, question is if it is okay to go further than this, that is, altering the picture after it has been taken. I’m ambiguous here, I would say yes if the story gets empowered, and no if the story becomes a story first when you have made those changes. In the latter case, you had no story in first place, but created one out of a vision you had in your head. That’s not journalism, that’s storytelling. In storytelling, everything is okay.
Just my humble opinion.
@Paul “drive the point home” at what point does it become opinion instead of observation? If the photojournalist goes into it to drive a point home his mind is made up about what he observes before the shutter is ever clicked that to my mind isn’t journalism. Without an open mind and curiosity to see the situation from all sides it becomes opinion and should be labeled as such. The nit picking about ‘levels’ etc are as moot as is using good grammar to write a clear sentence. Staging a scene is advancing the observers opinion and then it becomes editorial not journalism. Both have their place and are valid but need to be defined as such to be ethical. True journalism is rare as it requires unbiased curiosity and fairness especially in today’s spin world where even the ‘facts’ can lie. Which story are you telling yours or the one that is there in front of you?
People want the truth, as it is happening.
Two pictures that come to mind for me is the little girl running down the road naked in Vietanm after being burned, and an image from Afghanistan from about a month ago with an American soldier with helmet and flak vest fighting in his underwear.
These are real events not staged. I think right now everyone is affraid of being “photoshopped”.
The old wisdom “seeing is believing” has some holes in it especially when applied to a photograph. If only it were that simple. Every photograph is made by a human being and that human has a point of view. Choices were made when the photograph was taken. Even if we know that the image was not “Photoshopped”, we need to put the message of the photo in the broader context of additional facts. I don’t think it’s ethical to phony up a story with staging or digital editing. But, the big issue goes beyond the ethics and morals of the photographer and puts the burden of interpretation and reaction to the information on the viewer.
Shoot! All this time I thought I was following the golf photog Paul Lester. I was going to point out sometime in the near future that the number of golf shots was a bit below par, but thought I’d hold my tongue for a bit longer. Can I get my subscription money back?
Isn’t “staging” and “Photoshopping” one and the same? One is with physical objects and the other is with digital. If a PJ feels OK about “reflect[ing] a truer picture of the place they are reporting from” and “creating a more profound, poetic, engaging photograph” by staging, they should have no compunction about doing the same with Photoshop and vice versa.
But at what point would moving a person a couple of inches to the left (physically or digitally) slide down the slippery slope to actually inserting someone (physically or digitally) into a scene who wasn’t there originally? Where would the lines be drawn?
Think about the word “staged.” That’s what one does for a performance which is typically used as a form of entertainment–it projects the writer’s/producer’s/performer’s vision into the mind of the viewer. What is the same thing called in photography when the topic is photojournalism? Is “staging” the right word? It becomes almost a form of public service announcement (Wikipedia says that “PSAs are intended to modify public attitudes by raising awareness about specific issues”). It moves beyond mere reportage. Isn’t that why a PJ might want to stage or Photoshop a shot? (Unless, of course, they are self-serving and are just looking for congratulations on the amazing shot–it then falls more along the lines of “art.”)
I like Earl’s definition of “pixels [that] have been removed, moved or added.” I definitely think this should be off limits to a PJ. As far as “adjustments” go? Tough call. Should anything that changes the mood be off limits? Definitely a gray area. I like the idea of a publication prominently declaring their policies. Should RAW files be available if needed? Wouldn’t this be a lot more than what is required of print journalists who uses words too emphasize a certain aspect of the scene they are reporting on? Should a print journalist be required to “prove” that every element reported on was as emphasized in reality as it is in the article? Are there different standards for print and photo journalists?
-scott c
Excellent thread. I do not have a full answer for this at this time in my life. I will share how a friend who is a professional photographer shooting film is against digital because of the manipulation. However, I’ve been in the field with him when he would move nature, a tree branch, or leaves to get the image he envisioned. “Photoshopped” it on the spot!
I feel we can ever move away from the fact that photography does not show reality.
Speaking of Photoshop, I have a question to throw out to you all. I have been using Elements for several years and just received an email from Adobe offering me the change to upgrade to CS4 for $299. What will I really gain besides bit depth?
When doing some basic editing such as contrast or lighting, I don’t think that this results in an “unethical” image. The truth is, rectifying problems such as this allows the image to reflect what was seen. A faulty image (exposure, etc,) is not any more “real”. Rather, editing to restore the “seen” is what allows a photographer to bring out the “real” image.
Staged? Not for art, not for journalism – simply an act for amusement for a small group, or for advertising purposes where everyone knows it’s an advertisement (Mr. Clean for example).
Ethics and morality. These are vital for a photographer, philosopher. Thanks Paul.
@All: I knew that Joe would get a wealth of information and well thought out responses. Thanks for helping out! There is some great food for thought here!
Another thought – group photos are staged events. I am thinking of recent photos of world leaders at the G8 and soon the G20 events. These type of staged photos are legitimate as they stand, similar to team photos, both professional and amateur. How about wedding photos? More staged photos. Ethical? yes! Moral? Yes!
@Robert: Good points. My guess, though, is that Joe was talking more about other types of events such as those depicted in Robert Capa’s Falling Soldier.
Hi all, everyone has posted such interesting points I have so much to chew on here. I have been corresponding with Philip Knightley, the author of The First Casualty (one of the first publications to question the authenticity of Capa’s Falling Soldier).
Philip kindly forwarded me the following link which may be of interest: http://www.foto8.com/home/content/view/973/226
Thanks again to Paul for raising this debate.
What do you think? Does staging an event, even if it is probable that it could happen, diminish the truthfulness of the image?
Yes.
Is it ethical?
No.
In my mind, this issue is rather straight forward. The role of a PJ should be that of an observer, nothing more. As soon as he/she asks to stage a situation (even one that he/she remembers to have happened before), he/she leaves that role and becomes involved.
Of course, by the choice of the photographic approach the photographer already is interpreting the scence and he/she gets involved by his/her mere presence. But that’s not to be avoided and therefore goes without saying.
But at least in the field of photojournalism a lot is driven by facial expressions, gestures, body language etc. And those are the things that definately should not be staged or directed.
The question on whether (or: how) a photo is allowed to be post-processed might be more difficult to answer, though. From my personal point of view: everything related to contrast, saturation, de-noising etc. is perfectly ok. Cropping is also fine, unless you use it deliberately for manipulating the overall context of the scene. The slippery slope begins with retouching I’d say…