Sunday, September 03, 2006
Thoughts on images and distributing the news
Last year when The Times-Picayune found itself in the middle of a flooded New Orleans, the paper found the only way it could publish for the first few days was via the Internet.
On Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 the paper announced “Today the paper is being distributed electronically only.” In a town almost completely without electricity, the paper found its only way to get information out was by the Internet. For three days the paper was only published electronically. The paper relocated to Baton Rouge where they started printing the paper. A small staff stayed in New Orleans and the coverage of the disaster by the paper garnered the publication two Pulitzer prizes.
When the subway bombing happened in London last year some of the first images to reach the public came via cell phone camera transmitted by some of the victims themselves. It is not uncommon to go to a video site like YouTube to view a video of a breaking event instead of a news site.
The Internet is redefining how and who distributes the news.
The digital age is also shaking the foundation of what we had felt to be fact.
Sadly, a picture can no longer be trusted to be what it appears to be. The advent of digital photography has made capturing images much easier with cameras that give the amateur the ability to produce a professional-looking image. Just about every digital camera now comes with supporting software to load on your computer to help store and modify the images.
Professional photographers have had high-end software available for about a decade to enable them to alter pictures in the computer in ways that were only dreamed of in the darkroom. When I first learned to shoot pictures, we were all film and learned how to process the negatives and print the images onto paper using an enlarger.
You could modify the image by doing things like altering the developing time of the film or modifying the chemistry of the developer. You would choose different types of film for different kinds of shooting situations. Then, in the darkroom, you would burn or dodge areas of an image to enhance some aspect of the photo. Altering an image to change details within the frame was difficult. You just didn’t insert Uncle John into the group shot at the reunion without incredible difficulty and even at that, it was often easy to spot.
Digital photography has changed all of that. Images can be saved on a card not much bigger than a postage stamp. Some of these cards can hold hundreds of images. Instead of changing film to suit special shooting situations, you now can just make adjustments on the camera. When before you would put special high speed film in for night shots and lower speed film for daylight, you now can put both on one card with simple changes in the settings on the camera.
Programs like PhotoShop enable a photographer to manipulate an image far beyond the modifications to film development and print making of the old film days. Uncle John can be inserted in the reunion photo. And, if photographer is careful, he can make it impossible to detect by the untrained eye.
As a matter of professional ethics, photojournalists avoid manipulating photos to distort their appearance. They should only crop, lighten or darken and make sure the image is in focus. These are modifications made in the old film days. This doesn’t always mean that someone doesn’t try to pass off a doctored image.
Two instances have been in the news recently. One involved the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon. A foreign news agency freelance photographer (not Associated Press) was accused of altering a photograph to make it appear that there was more smoke and therefore more damage after an attack in Beirut.
In another case, the suggestion has been made that a television news magazine made its new anchor appear slimmer than she really is. The image in the magazine does make it appear she has taken of a few pounds when compared to the same image obtained elsewhere. To her credit the anchor said she prefers the undoctored image.
Now there is word that some camera companies are including software in their cameras that would enable the photographer to “slim down” the subject even as the image is being captured. We all want to have flattering pictures, but this only further erodes the credibility of the photograph.
Add your comment or contact me at rpolk@chespub.com.
On Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 the paper announced “Today the paper is being distributed electronically only.” In a town almost completely without electricity, the paper found its only way to get information out was by the Internet. For three days the paper was only published electronically. The paper relocated to Baton Rouge where they started printing the paper. A small staff stayed in New Orleans and the coverage of the disaster by the paper garnered the publication two Pulitzer prizes.
When the subway bombing happened in London last year some of the first images to reach the public came via cell phone camera transmitted by some of the victims themselves. It is not uncommon to go to a video site like YouTube to view a video of a breaking event instead of a news site.
The Internet is redefining how and who distributes the news.
The digital age is also shaking the foundation of what we had felt to be fact.
Sadly, a picture can no longer be trusted to be what it appears to be. The advent of digital photography has made capturing images much easier with cameras that give the amateur the ability to produce a professional-looking image. Just about every digital camera now comes with supporting software to load on your computer to help store and modify the images.
Professional photographers have had high-end software available for about a decade to enable them to alter pictures in the computer in ways that were only dreamed of in the darkroom. When I first learned to shoot pictures, we were all film and learned how to process the negatives and print the images onto paper using an enlarger.
You could modify the image by doing things like altering the developing time of the film or modifying the chemistry of the developer. You would choose different types of film for different kinds of shooting situations. Then, in the darkroom, you would burn or dodge areas of an image to enhance some aspect of the photo. Altering an image to change details within the frame was difficult. You just didn’t insert Uncle John into the group shot at the reunion without incredible difficulty and even at that, it was often easy to spot.
Digital photography has changed all of that. Images can be saved on a card not much bigger than a postage stamp. Some of these cards can hold hundreds of images. Instead of changing film to suit special shooting situations, you now can just make adjustments on the camera. When before you would put special high speed film in for night shots and lower speed film for daylight, you now can put both on one card with simple changes in the settings on the camera.
Programs like PhotoShop enable a photographer to manipulate an image far beyond the modifications to film development and print making of the old film days. Uncle John can be inserted in the reunion photo. And, if photographer is careful, he can make it impossible to detect by the untrained eye.
As a matter of professional ethics, photojournalists avoid manipulating photos to distort their appearance. They should only crop, lighten or darken and make sure the image is in focus. These are modifications made in the old film days. This doesn’t always mean that someone doesn’t try to pass off a doctored image.
Two instances have been in the news recently. One involved the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon. A foreign news agency freelance photographer (not Associated Press) was accused of altering a photograph to make it appear that there was more smoke and therefore more damage after an attack in Beirut.
In another case, the suggestion has been made that a television news magazine made its new anchor appear slimmer than she really is. The image in the magazine does make it appear she has taken of a few pounds when compared to the same image obtained elsewhere. To her credit the anchor said she prefers the undoctored image.
Now there is word that some camera companies are including software in their cameras that would enable the photographer to “slim down” the subject even as the image is being captured. We all want to have flattering pictures, but this only further erodes the credibility of the photograph.
Add your comment or contact me at rpolk@chespub.com.
# posted by Richard Polk @ 9:28 AM 
