Norm Shafer, who I know as a photographer at the Virginian-Pilot (an awesome photo paper where I have freelanced occasionally) recently raised questions about my use of both advertising and editorial content on the same blog. He had thoughts which I think other people share and which are worth discussing. His full comment is here. Basically, he thinks it is misleading and unethical to combine or “composite” photos. This got my mind working and rather than bury my response in the comments page, I chose to share it as it’s own post. Below, is what I wrote to Norm.
I only alter images for advertising work and anything I post on the blog has a note about the alteration. As I build more advertising work, I’ll eventually place it on my main website in it’s own advertising section, which is very separate from my journalism work. You said, “I feel that the viewers of these photos are led to believe that they are a truthfull representation of reality, and when they find out they’ve been fooled it puts into question the truthfullness of photography.” I think the truthfulness of photography has been in question since it’s invention. You should read this link about a composite from 1860 involving Lincoln. There are countless examples like this. In fact the Chrysler Museum currently exhibits an interesting series of pictures by Henry Peach Robinson who was famous for combining 4 or 5 negatives in the 19th century. For me advertising and fine art photography should be read like a fiction book. The events, characters and plot are invented, but if done well, the reader believes it. He might even find truth in it. Photojournalism is like a non-fiction book. It should be accurate but it is still subject to the bias of the writer. A lot of writers engage in both worlds and I think photographers should be able to as well, as long as they are honest about it.
This is an age-old discussion, but please leave your thoughts if you have any.
2 Comments
My thoughts on this are as follows. Unfortunately newspaper photojournalism is quickly disappearing. My husband and I now make our living doing portraits for magazines, advertising shoots and weddings. In my opinion there is no reason that a photojournalist who does advertising on the side wouldn’t be able to draw the line between an ad shoot and a news assignment. I don’t do any major imaging on my own work but if an ad agency does I have no problem with that. Often an ad agency is going to make the call after a shoot to perfect an image according to their purpose. There’s nothing unethical about it. Advertisers have no interest in upholding the “truthfullness” of photography; their interest lies in selling products and services. More importantly, I predict that when newspapers are gone and news magazines are few, it will be people like Roberto who are able to support themselves with their advertising work, who will have the equipment and be available to shoot the important photojournalism of the future.
I have to agree with Roberto: he clearly states when a photograph has been altered, why, and in what way, all throughout this blog. And if he includes advertising work on his website later on, then it is also fine as long as it is classified as advertising, and preferably, as I have seen done in other photographers’ sites, he displays the photo within the actual advertisement for more accurate representation. Either way, the audience at large bears some responsibility by now, 2008, in regards to understanding some aspects of media, chiefly, that advertisements are not truthful and are fully manipulated creations.
In response to Jennifer Sens’ comment, I would like to point out that although it is estimated that by 2040 the last newspaper in America will be chucked in a trash bin, photojournalism isn’t going to go with it. Photojournalism will migrate to new media, like the web. In fact, so much more content can be made available online that it may just open up new doors for working photojournalists. News won’t disappear, nor will storytelling. I think the issue that Roberto was addressing had to do with the content of his site, not his choice to shoot photojournalism and commercial work. Of course, if Mr. Shafer is implying that supplying photographs to advertising agencies, which will in turn alter the material, is unethical, then I wholly disagree with him.