Artistic licence or technological advancement: should news photographers go for effect or just show how it is?

Posted by Christie Silk on July 29, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Suspicions of exaggeration and embellishment are reactions that journalists strive to dispel in their writings, yet as photographs are increasingly used as complements to printed and online stories, or sometimes as the story itself, the spotlight of scrutiny is now on their authenticity. Readers, it appears, are today more sensitive and sceptical to the visual "proof" that is put in front of them, and are raising these concerns to the editors.

The Los Angeles Times reports a noticeable increase in the number of reader inquiries into the authenticity of its published photographs. A recent reader query about the physical realities of an urban landscape has prompted the paper to discuss the reasons for this rising reader distrust. In this incident, the doubts over whether the photo had been altered were quashed with the photographer's clarification that he had used a long lens, which "compresses the view", thereby fitting more features into a image than a standard lens would allow.

However, the allegation and response to this one photograph has underlined the precise problems of this issue. There is, apparently, no industry-wide standard set for the authenticity of published images, and while individual publications may impose their own guidelines, the nature of photographic makes them inevitably impressionistic. Furthermore, for the non-photographers of the world, is there much of a real difference between the doctoring of photographs and the use of clever technology which, again for the layman, produces very different results to the "standard" camera?

The use of the long lens allows photographers to capture more features with one shot, producing images, which are arguably more "beautiful and informative". Features, which, make a great accompaniment to a written story. Yet, what is their value if they create reader confusion? Deputy Director of Photography Calvin Hom at the LA Times confirmed the reality of this problem: "we seem to get queries whenever our photogs use long lens while shooting landscape. It's a technique that time and again seems to jolt the readers into thinking there's something wrong with the photos."

Perhaps, given that they are in fact real, genuine representations, these do not have to be discarded, but rather the use of the lens should be made explicit for the reader. This is the view of Colin Crawford, deputy managing editor for visuals at the LA Times, who adds that "taken with a long lens" should be added to captions.

The issue of doctoring, however, is not rectified quite so easily. The LA Times ethics guidelines stipulates that "photos cannot be digitally altered or otherwise manipulated". Its editors, as with the majority of respectable publications, expect that these guidelines are followed to guarantee accuracy. In 2003, one of its photographers was fired in 2003 after doctoring a shot which appeared on the front page of the paper. Other prestigious publications have also encountered similar embarrassments, which perhaps shows the ambiguity of the photo ethics guidelines.

The media world is progressing rapidly in terms of the development of technology and the proliferation of new information platforms, thus it is almost inevitable that associated ethics have become more down to interpretation. Often, guidelines no not match the pace of the use of technological innovation.

Moreover, as the LA Times points out, this evolution has sowed the seeds of doubt within the public. The proliferation of photography as a professional and amateur occupation, and the increased ease of getting works published, thanks to the variety of new media platforms, has made it more widely obvious how easily photos are altered. Moreover, as Com of the LA Times is ready to admit "all the stories of ethical lapses by media publications - including ours."

It is clear, therefore, that if the inclusions of images are to give value to a publication rather than act as a liability, it is imperative that every member of the editing team is aware of the necessity of visual authenticity.

Source: Los Angeles Times