Paul Lester Photo

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?

Don’t worry! I’ll hold my own leash!

Last weekend I was in downtown Charleston taking photos. After finishing my walk I sat down on a seat in Waterfront Park and watched the people walk by, camera in hand.

After a moment, a lady came by jogging. A few seconds behind her was a dog. Nothing unusual, you say. Well, the dog was jogging a few steps behind carrying its own leash! I’d never seen that before and sincerely doubt that I’ll see it again any time soon unless I see this same woman somewhere.

When the lady returned, I made sure to snap a picture. I made a remark to her about never having seen it, she laughed and said that she hadn’t either and that the dog just learned to do that on her own!

The things that you see while sitting and watching! I showed Hobbs the picture, but he wasn’t interested in learning how to do this! He said that if he had the leash in his mouth, he couldn’t pick up those important morsels that he finds on the ground!

I want to step out of the gate and say that I absolutely do NOT believe that there is such a thing as objective reality. I do not. All reality is sent through filters of what we believe and what we expect as well as our particular agenda. Period.

Yesterday, I read a post that caused me to think about this (again): Documenting the face of America by Mark Hobson

I don’t really like to talk about politics and such and in no way am I making Ad Hominem attacks on this author. His piece was well written and he argued his point of view well. As a matter of fact, he has a follow up piece that is just as well written and thoughtful: Just thinking out loud (again). I suggest that you read both and form your own opinions.

Propaganda:
Propaganda, as defined by the dictionary, is chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. Some call it truth. Some call it an inconvenient truth or what have you. (my emphasis)

When I go out with my camera, it is certainly easy for me to deliver my point of view about anything, depending on how I ‘filter’ my photos, or what point I’m trying to drive home. A year or more ago when I was in Texas, I took some nice photos of the landscape. I walked through my friend’s neighborhood and looked for photo opportunities. There were a couple of dry creek beds filled with trash, discarded items, and a toilet. I had a few of choices:
1. I could photograph the trash and show how terrible that we as humans are and how much we need to clean up our act, etc.
2. I could photograph the beautiful landscape, most of it man-made through landscaping efforts and the addition of a pond, and show the beauty that I saw.
3. I could juxtapose the two and provide either a sense of the beauty and how we trashed it or perhaps it would come across as the beauty endures despite our efforts to trash it. It’s all in how you look at it.

It is the same with any political, cultural, personal position that I may hold. As a photographer, I can go out and show how bad things or perhaps how good things are, just by where I point my camera, when I click the shutter, and by what I perceive. I’ve said this before, turn to Fox News, one story, turn to CNN, same story, different spin. Spln left. Spin right. Where’s the middle?

In Mark’s story, he told of a health care reform advocate who said:

It was absolutely stunning. When I walked through the fairground gates, I saw hundreds of people lined up, in the rain. It was raining that day. Lined up, waiting to get care, in animal stalls. Animal stalls.
–Wendell Potter

And even though Mark says that he has been trying to find pictures (but having no luck) …:

I have been trying to find pictures (but having no luck) of what has come to be known as “healthcare expeditions” – large-scale free healthcare “events” held around the US of A where tens of thousands of Americans without access to healthcare (provided by volunteers) stand in lines for hours on end (bringing lunch and folding chairs is recommended), sometimes overnight, to receive one sort of healthcare or another.

he jumps right on in with his ‘beliefs’ and states them as fact, saying that this IS happening in America, even though he has not personally seen these events.

Honestly, I do not know what the truth is and am not trying to discover that truth in this post. Instead, I’m looking at it from the perspective of a photographer who might want more concrete information before participating in an assignment, for example.

On the RAM (Remote Area Medical) website I saw a picture of lots of people standing around in a fairground like area, but that is what I’d expect to find at a fair. The picture doesn’t necessarily support the assertion of what they say is going on. Could this be a normal day at the fair? Could this be a small town whose hospital just burned down or is undergoing repairs? There’s nothing here to indicate that there is any type of medical treatment going on. Get closer. Give me more detail. Prove it to me with your images!

If anyone has been involved in participating in debate, you know how you can spend days or weeks gathering information, statistics, and ‘facts’ for your side of the story. You may even come across facts that argue against your side, but those are conveniently left aside because they don’t support the cause, or your viewpoint. Also, I find it funny how magazines are getting so self-righteous about photo manipulation and ‘truth’ in photography, yet, they seem to do little about the writing the accompanies the photo, some of it heavily biased and not reporting all of the facts, or even enough of them to let someone form an alternate opinion. I’ve seen lots of pieces that are little more than editorial comments, not news.

I do believe that photography can be a great conduit for change. Just look at the work that the FSA Photographers did during the great depression. They caused powerful changes to happen and, without those images, things probably would have changed at a much slower pace, but things do continue to change, regardless. They told stories that some people didn’t want to hear, other stories that people needed to hear. They were a force for positive change. They didn’t seem to be so much politically motivated, more socially motivated.

Would I like to see us divert billions of dollars from military expenditures to health care? Certainly! Then, I’d feel that my tax dollars are spent wisely on help, not on fear.

Would I like to be a participant in making that happen by using my camera and/or my words? Absolutely, but only so far as I would be documenting the facts of the matter, not merely making photos to imply something. That seems disingenuous.

I’m quite careful these days about what I consider truth because I know about those filters that we all have. Most things that we call truth are really nothing more than points of view and opinion.

If such a movement were started, I’d be happy to participate for the greater good! I’d love to be part of a movement that I could really sink my teeth into and use my camera as a tool for change … however, I don’t want to be involved in politics!

This happened a couple of weeks ago. Right after I got my shipment of Rodinal film developer, which is to be measured in small quantities, I thought that I might go and by a syringe to do it with. Easy, right? Nope! But fun.

It went something like this:
I walk into my local Rite Aide drugstore knowing that, under US law, I have the right to purchase up to 20 syringes, without needles, no questions asked …

Pharmacist’s assistant: Hi. How may I help you?
Paul: Hello. I’d like to buy one syringe, no sharp (needle) please. Enough to hold about 10 ml.
P.A.: (looks at Pharmacist quizzically, then back at me like I had two heads!) – Ummmm. OK?
Paul: (Let’s them dangle in the wind a bit knowing that they want to ask why.) Do you have them?
P.A.: (Still looking at pharmacist): Ummm, yes we do. What size did you say?
Paul (confidently): 10 ml please.
P.A: Ummmmm. OK.

Now, at this point, it was starting to get a bit funny because she was seriously wondering why I wanted them. Well, for starters, I don’t look like a drug user, or at least I don’t think that I do. I surely don’t look like I’ve sacrificed food for drugs. LOL!

After letting her swing for just a beat more, I said: “OK. I need to measure a small quantity of liquid. I develop my own film and have to measure 10 ml. That’s why I need only one. I’ve looked on the shelves but only have found things that measure in teaspoons and I like the accuracy of the metric system. So, do you have them and can I buy one?!”

At this time, a somewhat relieved look comes over the P.A.’s face, she reaches under the counter and gives me a free baby medicine measuring thingy with a rubber bulb on one end. It can measure about 5 ml at one time and is marked in 1 ml increments. Perfect. Sure, I have to do it twice to 10 ml, but it works. AND it was free!

I left with a chuckle. I feel like going in again and asking the same question and demanding that they sell them to me … just because! I guess that’s what I get for developing film!