Alterations in Photojournalistic Photography

Photojournalists are held within the same standards as other journalists.  These standards include the idea of objectivity, ethics, etc.  Journalists write non-fiction and photojournalists shoot photos that are supposed to be non-fiction.  The general public expects and relies on this notion.

The implications of the increasing alteration of journalistic photography are real.  The sophistication with which photos are altered is mind blowing.  It is important to note that when it comes to journalistic photography, the journalist takes the photo and then delivers it to whichever news organization he/she is affiliated with.  Once that photo is passed on to the news organization, it is taken over by the sub-editor or photo-editor.  Once that happens, what happens to the photos are how it is manipulated is usually out of the hands of the photographer.  As more and more photos, whether press photos or otherwise, are altered and published the line between what is “real” and what is “fake” becomes blurred.

With digital photography being the norm, editing software like Photoshop make editing photos extremely easy and accessible.  Photo manipulation, however, is not something new.  Back in history, photo manipulation was achieved by using a number of tools and techniques, including scratching Polaroid photos and airbrushing. 



Historic Photo Manipulation Tools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_manipulation



The first recorded case of photo manipulation occurred in the early 1860s.  A photo of President Abraham Lincoln was altered by putting his head on the body of John. C. Calhoun.



Abraham Lincoln and John Calhoun
http://click.si.edu/Story.aspx?story=178


The next photo shows an Iranian missile test.  The above photo was manipulated to make it look like there was an additional missile being fired.  The bottom photo shows what actually took place, which actually displays the fact that one of the missiles that was supposed to go off did not.  News agencies had to issue corrections when the Iranian government agency's fraud was found out.


Iranian Missile Test
http://www.stepinsidedesign.com/STEP/Article/28898/

 Another example of photomanipulation in press photography is shown below.  Two photos issued by the government had to be retracted after a photographer noticed that these two photos, which were meant to depict two U.S. soldiers that had died in the line of duty on the same day.  Staff Sgt. Darris Dawson and Sgt. Wesley R. Durbin both passed away on Sept 14 2008.  If you look closely at the photos, it is apparent that the only difference in the photos are the faces.

Altered Photos of Staff Sgt. Darris Dawson and Sgt. Wesley R. Durbin
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/19/doctored-army-photos/

A final example shows a photo of Condoleeza Rice that was published by USA Today.


USA Today- Condoleezza Rice
http://michellemalkin.com/2005/10/26/demonizing-condi/

 The original photo is shown below:

Yahoo! Espana - Condoleezza Rice
http://michellemalkin.com/2005/10/26/demonizing-condi/

Condoleezza's eyes in the photo published by USA Today appear strange: the whites of her eyes are much more visible than in the actual photo.  It is almost as if the USA Today photo is trying to make Rice appear villian like, or as the article describes it, "possessed". 



Unless a photo is altered for a reason that does not take away from the actual focus of the photo, I feel that photo manipulation in press photography is wrong.  If a photo is altered to perhaps remove a blemish, reduce the redness in someone's eyes, etc., I am okay with that.  But when a photojournalistic photo is manipulated with the intent to manipulate the viewer of the photo and to take away from the fundamental point of the photo, I feel that something very unethical has taken place. As mentioned by the Times, photos that are taken for photojournalistic purposes and are meant to depict reality should be genuine in everyway.


Sources:

http://click.si.edu/Story.aspx?story=178
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photojournalism
http://michellemalkin.com/2005/10/26/demonizing-condi/
Photojournalism in the Age of Scrutiny by Kenneth Irby (Poynter Online)
phototruth or photofiction?: ethics in media imagery in the digital age. By Tom Wheeler
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/19/doctored-army-photos/

http://www.stepinsidedesign.com/STEP/Article/28898/

edited/altered images

It is no surprise that near every image you see in modern media has been altered or "touched up" in some way, shape, or form.  Today I altered and edited pictures from my own personal collection.  I specifically chose pictures that I actually love, just the way they are, but wanted to show how these pictures can be altered, emphasized, and de-emphasized in different ways.

The first set of pictures is of one of my heros- my father.  The original picture was taken by me when both my father and I went to Florida in December of 2008.  My father and I decided to go to the beach.  I am not the biggest fan of fishing, but I do love sitting and relaxing on the beach.  So, at this moment, we were both happy and relaxed.



Unedited




Edited

 The first picture is a picture I took of my father on the beach just as he threw his last catch back into the water and we were going to get ready to head back to the hotel.  I was sitting on a lawn chair and could barely see my father's face because of the strong light from the sun behind him.  He turned to look at me while resting his fishing rod on the ground and asked me if I was ready to go home.  I told him not to move as I scrambled for my camera and took this picture.

In the edited photo, I simply brightened the light from the sun in the background.  It just lights up the entire photo.  Also, in the first picture, you'll notice that my knee is showing in the bottom left corner of the picture, so I cropped my knee out so as not to take away from the majestic look of this picture. To me, this picture looks so regal.  My father looks like some sort of King in the sunset, and the fishing rod is his staff.  I just love it.



The next picture is a bit bizarre.  It was taken 3 winters ago in the evening.  A little known fact about me is that I have Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.  It is an autoimmune disease.  It affects my kidneys.  In 2004, I went into complete renal failure and have been on dialysis ever since.  In 2008, I learned how to operate a dialysis machine and therefore do dialysis myself at home.  Before that, I had to venture out at 6:30am every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday morning to go to the hospital and receive dialysis.



It can get cold in the dialysis unit, so I always carry a duffle bag with a heavy blanket in it.  Early one morning, I put on my scarf and winter jacket and was ready to head off to dialysis.  I bent down and picked up my duffle bag so I could zip it up. It was sitting on the floor near the dining table.  Little did I know-when I zipped up my duffle bag, my scarf had gotten caught in the zipper of the bag.  When I dropped the duffle bag on the ground, my neck was jerked forward by the force of the bag due to my scarf being caught in the duffle bag.  Unlucky for me- the force of my face flying forward was halted by the corner of one of the dining room chairs.  I had smacked the corner of my eye on the corner of the chair.  The result was a black eye.

Unaltered



Altered

I took a picture of my eye after I had returned home from dialysis. How odd is it to describe such a story to others?  I wore a lot of concealer until the black eye faded.  In the altered photo, I used Picasa 3 to add "warmth" to the picture.  I also added tuning, adjusted the contrast, and added a bit of shadowing to the picture to try and camoflague the black eye slightly.  In looking at the altered photo, the result was almost a more pronounced black eye.

I kind of enjoy the original picture because I've never had a black eye, and because the way I got the black eye is so odd.

The last photo might be my favourite set of photos of all.  As I mentioned previously, I am on dialysis.  In order to facilitate the dialysis, I had to have a fistula put into my left arm.  A fistula is essentially when a vein in my arm and an artery are attached surgically, causing blood to flow through more rapidly.  It also causes the vein to get bigger, therefore making it easier to insert the relatively large needles into the vein without blowing it up.  I've always been self conscious about the appearance of my fistula.  It's big, it's weird, and it's ugly.  I usually avoid wearing short sleeved shirts, even on the hottest of days.  I usually wear cardigans or long sleeved shirts.

My friend Carmela is a photographer.  While we were in the park, she encouraged me to allow her to take a picture of me-fistula and all.  Again, I was aprehensive, but then thought that the final result might just come out beautifully.  So, I agreed.



Unaltered



Altered

I ended up loving the picture Carmela took.  After having this picture taken, I didn't feel like I always needed to hide my fistula.  I knew that people might stare, or ask questions, but aside from that, what's the worst that could happen?

In my edited photo, I decided to make the fistula the focal point of the picture.  I made the entire photo black and white, except for the fistula.  The reason I did this was to show that I am no longer afraid to show my fistula or to have people see it.  It is a part of me, and it is my lifeline.  Why should I be ashamed of it?


-all photos were edited using Picasa 3.
``

http://picasa.google.com/