Photojournalists on the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) list-serv were busy chatting it up last week. Much of the conversation centered on the firing of Charlotte Observer photographer. Then, an image appear on Yahoo.news that is just know becoming news. Apparently, a Reuters freelancer in Lebanon cloned some patches of smoke. The picture has since been removed by the agency. Oooops, anyway here we go again.
Reality is as slippery as an eel in oil. To its credit, Reuters pulled or “killed” the photo once it became clear that it was manipulated. Eliana Johnson writing for the New York Sun reported:
“The photographer who supplied the picture, Adnan Hajj, has worked for Reuters on a freelance basis since 1993. Mr. Hajj "denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under," Reuters said.”
On one hand, it is good news that the media acts responsibly in these cases. On the other hand, where are the checks and balances on as far as post-production processes? Since reporters have fact-checkers, editors, to verify that was is reported is accurate, why shouldn’t photographers. The problem with Mr. Hajj’s manipulation in this instance is that we don’t know how many other altered images have slipped by the gatekeepers. Most likely, Mr. Hajji is an in-country hire, which brings up another major issue in terms of credibility for Western audiences.
Increasingly wire services have had to rely on freelancers familiar with knowledge of the language, culture, and country to obtain images. Freelancers, by the way, also cost a lot less than using staff, which makes them even more valuable.
Sometimes, in-country hires and freelancers do not adhere to the same ethical standards and visual practices as Westerners. For example, in Latin America during the 1980s and 1990s it was quite common for photographers at competing newspapers to share images if one of them had missed an event. The absent photographer would simply put his or her name on the borrowed picture. The thought here was that the favor would be eventually returned.
The big question photographers seem to be asking, especially after analyzing digital manipulation policies at the Observer as well as the NPPA code of conduct, is how can the industry clarify and concisely define what it means by manipulation?
Digital manipulation, it is commonly believed, constitutes an activity that alters the meaning of the original image. In other words, photographers should NOT take things out or put things into a picture that weren’t there to begin with. Photographers should not alter the tone and color of an image beyond what was acceptable in pre-digital days. How many young photographers actually know what those standards represent?
In the past decade, there has been sufficient evidence to conclude that post-production processes, i.e., digital manipulation, has ranged from overt and intentional deception to the more pervasive subjective subtle adjustments of tone and color of an image.
This sort of after the fact scenario appears to be increasing. Now the question becomes what to do about it. I have created a very short survey on this topic and hope you might take a few minutes to respond. I'll post the results in a few days. Feel free to pass the survey around to others.