EVERY PICTURE TELLS A LIE, that was my bumper sticker in the 90s... I was so stoked and ironic...
Is there such a thing as an anti-HERO photograph? Can a photo be trustworthy and impartial? This is the dilemma of the ethical photojournalist, how to illustrate a story with photographs, being fair and equitable yet still creating compelling images that sell newspapers (and win awards).
The National Press Photographers Association Code of Ethics (NPPA LINK- nine standards) has as its number one standard:
"Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects."
I was fortunate to learn early that newspaper photojournalism deadlines did not appeal to me. I was promoted to the position of Photo Editor of the local college newspaper, and soon found my staff photographers even worse with deadlines than I. There wasn't really ever a discussion of what ethical standards might be or what constituted an ethically a gray area. If there would have been a controversy over one of our photos we may have had that lecture, but it never happened while I was at the VC Press.
I then went on to Brooks Institute of Photography in Santa Barbara, and the concept of photo ethics remained nonchalant. Had a crisis occurred with a student or instructor photograph at the time, I'm sure there would have been a "Memo from Ernie" read in all the classes, and we may have debated it over beer(s) at Peabody's but it never happened while I was at Brooks.
I decided to go into commercial photography and opened a studio in downtown Ventura. I started knocking on doors with my portfolio looking for work. No one ever asked for my diploma, no one cared if I was Democrat or Republican, they just felt my price was fair, and took my word for it that every image in my portfolio was actually mine. They had to trust that the images I showed them exemplified the quality of work I would deliver.
Ah, Marketing. I caught on real soon that the objectivity of photojournalism is not a requirement for advertising, just look at the healthy-looking cowboys in the cigarette ads.
At Brooks we used Crisco when we needed scoops of vanilla ice cream.
My first big client made refrigerator-sized industrial equipment. They took my advice and allowed me to use blue, yellow and red gels on the lights (hey it was the 80s), I taped blueprints up on the walls of the research department we were photographing. We then moved every new computer in the building (with 5.25 inch floppy drives attached) into the frame so it would look "High-Tech." Photojournalistically unethical? Yes, yet just another day in advertising.
In the 90s I photographed so many scientist/doctor-like models, I eventually bought a white lab coat and a stethoscope to keep in the studio so that I wouldn't need to rent wardrobe. The photos depicted a white male wearing a lab coat over a shirt and tie with a stethoscope around his neck. If you assumed that the man was a doctor, then that was merely a lucky coincidence for the client du jour.
I now spend almost all my time photographing architecture and bridges and the like, and also the people that design them and live in them in their context. In this age when Adobe Photoshop is used on virtually every image seen in public, photographic ethics and the "Photoshop Propriety" of each photographer has more bearing than ever on how a project will look. Much of my work is documentary structure surveys (HABS/HAER/HALS) and in those cases I strive to be as informational and objective as possible. I'm more comfortable with the "Honester" approach to my subjects and since I'm not entering any competitions, I don't have the added temptation of winning awards. Often the final project has never seen a computer, the film is printed in the darkroom and delivered without the aid of modern technology.
However my architectural portfolios and editorial assignments call for HERO shots and the most attractive views. The only thing keeping me from spending even more time in Photoshop is a belief that my retouching has reached a point where I think more manipulation stops telling the story and enters the realm of "CGI" (Computer Generated Imaging)(where reality has no bearing on what can be done). Like the Bionic Man, "We can make him stronger, faster..." we can make a building look better than it really is: That paint color is a little dull, let's brighten the hue, the windows would have been bigger if they hadn't run over budget, let's make them bigger, the trees will be mature someday, let's clone in some old trees from the park, etc., etc., etc...
I'm not sure we can proscribe how much a commercial photograph can be changed before it becomes "false advertising." Everyone – viewer, photographer, client, architect, art director, advertiser – will have a different standard. Some photographers will feel more Photoshopping is normal, and others will feel that any manipulation is too much. So today the body of work that a photographer exhibits in their portfolio and website shows not only their talent and point of view, but also the tremendous influence of their "Photoshop Propriety".
I have given away the lab coat, the clip-on ties, the stethoscope, the makeup kit, etc. (It was a long list.) I kept the lights – I use them to illuminate dark places. While teaching a California Preservation Foundation Workshop on Photography last week, someone asked if taking a generator and lights into a dark building was indeed honest documentation when the room has been dark for decades and has no windows or electricity. Hmm – we had an answer – but is there a right answer? I'll leave that question open...
-Schaf
Note: when I wrote this, I heard a nice story on the radio about Food Stylists and photography, makes advertising photographers look tame... listen here (NPR LINK)
