Friday, July 27, 2007
Distorted Picture: Photojournalism Credibility
Current and retired Beacon Journal photographers especially should be interested in an artricle titled "Distorted Picture" in the August/September preview of American Journalism Review
Thanks to Photoshop, the article notes, it’s awfully easy to manipulate photographs, as a number of recent scandals make painfully clear. Misuse of the technology poses a serious threat to photojournalism’s credibility.
Here are the lead graphs of the story by Sherry Ricchiardi, AJR senior contributing writer.:
If photo sleuths in Ohio hadn't noticed a pair of missing legs, Allan Detrich still would be cruising to assignments in his sleek blue truck, building his reputation as a photographer extraordinaire at the Toledo Blade. In April, the veteran shooter was forced out of the newsroom in disgrace, igniting a scandal that swept the photojournalism community. Coworkers were mystified about why a highly talented, hard worker who had garnered a slew of awards would cheat.
Detrich says that for a time, he felt like the most "reviled journalist in the country." Internet forums buzzed about his misdeeds, and photographers attacked him for sullying the profession. Some even sent hateful e-mail messages. "I wasn't the first to tamper with news photos and, unfortunately, I probably won't be the last," he says. "I screwed up. I got caught."
In his case, he says, he was seduced by software that made altering images so easy that "anyone can do it."
With new technology, faking or doctoring photographs has never been simpler, faster or more difficult to detect. Skilled operators truly are like magicians, except they use tools like Photoshop, the leading digital imaging software, to create their illusions.
Detrich, who had worked for the Blade since 1989, manipulated most of the images while alone in his truck, using a cell phone or WiFi for quick and easy transmission to the photo desk. There was little reason for him to return to the newsroom to process images. Until April 5, no one challenged the veracity of his photographs.
The photographer's downfall underscores a disturbing reality: With readily accessible, relatively inexpensive imaging tools (Photoshop sells for around $650) and a low learning curve, the axiom "seeing is believing" never has been more at risk. That has led to doomsday predictions about documentary photojournalism in this country.
"The public is losing faith in us. Without credibility, we have nothing; we cannot survive," says John Long, chairman of the ethics and standards committee of the National Press Photographers Association. Long pushes for stricter newsroom standards with missionary zeal and believes all journalists are tarnished when someone like Detrich falls from grace.
Click on the headline to read the full story.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"Distorted Picture: Photojournalism Credibility" just goes to show that there is nothing new under the sun.
Back when I started as an apprentice photoengraver in 1958 (and continuing for some years after until the arrival of high speed 35 mm film), The Art Dept. routinely 'retouched' photos. This was done more as a way to ensure good reproduction rather than as a way to distort or change a photo. The slow speed of camera films of that era simply did not lend itself to good results with regard to fine detail. This was especially true with action shots of night football games or the ubiquitous shot of ' 4 people wearing tuxedos with cocktail glasses in their hands ' for the society page.
However, I remember one outstanding example of that practice. The story goes that one day an editor got a call from a reader. It seems that the gentlemans' picture appeared in the paper that day showing him wearing what apprared to be a tuxedo. He said he was puzzled becaused he didn't own a tuxedo and couldn't remember ever wearing one. Upon investigation the truth came out. The editor wanted a shot of the man for the story but the only available picture of the gentleman was not suitable for the society page so the artist obligingly painted a tuxedo over the picture; a picture which showed him sitting in a canoe in his bathing suit.
Actually, this was a common practice especially when an editor wanted one hed shot from a group pix. He would simply paint out or x out the other folks in the pix and outline the hed.
With the advent of color and digital imageing, this all changed. When the Crossfield color scanner was put on line, it didn't take me long to realize that I had a powerful tool in my hand. My initial training was such that I had to constantly remind myself not to 'make it better'. I would always consult with an editor before making any adjustments to the pix. i.e., "Do you really want Bill Clinton to have green hair on pg.1?" Those were fun times.
Pat Dougherty
Post a Comment