Photographic Ethics

[Razr]

"Light, the first created element, draws the picture."
—William Langenheim
________________________________________
You want to know: Were all of the things you see in a remarkable photograph really there when the picture was taken? Or were they added later? By attaching the FoundView checkmark to a photograph, the photographer or publisher guarantees that the viewer is seeing the forms and shapes that the camera recorded the moment the shutter was clicked—no more, and no less.

Computer technology has made it easier than ever before to manipulate forms and shapes in photographs, in ways that are indiscernible to even the most observant viewer. Because the viewer wants to know whether any forms or shapes were altered in a realistic-looking photograph, FoundView provides a simple way for photographers and publishers to label their own photographs accordingly.

The FoundView checkmark is their guarantee that post-shutter manipulation, if any, was limited to tonal variations (contrast, brightness, intensity, hue) and that no one involved in producing a FoundView photograph moved, added, deleted (except by cropping), or otherwise altered any forms or shapes in that photograph after the shutter was clicked.
http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/
"Trust Image" has replaced "Foundiview" as the benchmark for those who subscribe to the "seen at the scene" philosophy,

Journalism has its ethics, as do forensic and evidence photographers. Others operate under looser "codes of conduct" regarding ethics in image making.

What say you?

[erichlund]

People keep trying to put limits on photography. The only thing that might be unethical is to misrepresent. If I don't say anything, that's not unethical, so long as my position doesn't somehow put a limitation on me. But if I say I didn't make changes when I did, that's misrepresentation.

Mind you, that does not apply to something like journalism or crime scene photography, where the photograph is supposed to be a true recording of an event.

[r3g]

I agree that photos taken for the purposes of journalism and forensic evidence should be unchanged (of course). But IMO there is no "code of conduct" for general photography. Photography is a form of art and you cant put rules or limitations on it. And seeing as it is about creativity I dont think anyone has the authority to judge others creativity based on PP. A good photo is a good photo whether it have a little PP or a lot of PP. The end result is all that matters.

[TNB]

"Trust Image" has replaced "Foundiview" as the benchmark for those who subscribe to the "seen at the scene" philosophy,

Journalism has its ethics, as do forensic and evidence photographers. Others operate under looser "codes of conduct" regarding ethics in image making.

What say you?

Nikon D200 Firmware update 2.0.0 for Windows

Image authentication item has been added to the setup menu. The optional Image Authentication software is required to authenticate images.

http://support.nikontech.com

[Pave]

I think that limiting photography is absurd. Photography is an art of sorts. And in my opinion it does'n matter whether you prove your creativity with your camera or afterwards with your computer.
I know some people who claim they never postprocess their shots. But so far I've met noone that would be strongly opposed to postprocessing. Even the people who don't postprocess don't have objections against my doing so.
Just for ilustration. About a month ago I took quite a good shot when I was on holiday. The only thing that looks bad is a traffic sign (I just wonder why it was in the historical centre). So when I removed it and replaced it by the background, did I make some offence angainst photography ethics? I don't think so...

[Prospero]

I agree with what has been said so far.

Of course there are certain fields where heavy post processing cannot be tolerated, like journalism, forensic, scientific and to some degree advertising. As others said, a picture should not be used to misportray for any purpose.

However, in most fields there are no limits. The only limit is the artist's personal taste, which may vary from natural looking to very surreal.

Personally, I post process my pictures quite heavily. In my opinion the pictures I take need not represent reality. Rather, I want them to represent my vision of a certain scene.

Sometimes this takes a lot of post processing. Take this image:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1322/1344005520_e7732ba88d.jpg

It was taken on a rainy day in Edinburg. The original picture straight out of the camera looked pretty dull, even though I got the exposure correct. This was not the way I experienced the scene at the time. I really liked the architecture and colourful streets in the city, but the miserable weather gave it a very gloomy atmosphere. Also, the city was overcrowded due to the Fringe festival, which gave it a bit of a oppressive atmosphere.

In my edit I tried to show this vision of the scene, by making the sky dark and gloomy and using curves on the buildings and street to make the detail and colour pop.
Of course the picture does not represent reality. The colours were not nearly as bright and the sky not nearly as dark. I dare say that a scene like this could not even occur in reality. However, the edit does suit my experience of the scene better.

I am always honest about wether I did post processing or not. In fact, I often tell people exactly the way I created an image. The techniques are no secret, after all.

I believe that when you take pictures as a way of art, there is no limit as to how far you can go. Just like a painter can paint a scene any way he likes, a photographer can manipulate his pictures until it suits his perception. Wether that takes photoshop or heaps of filters does not really matter.

[Bynx]

When it comes to photography for advertising, there is no ethics. They do whatever they have to do which includes lying cheating, and deceiving and misrepresenting the people or product to sell whatever it is they want to sell.

[TheObiJuan]

I agree Prospero.
Great capture there, it's a fantastic image.

The purpose is not always to reproduce what one sees, but to make what one sees into art for others to see.

For examples, waterfalls are rarely represented in photographs the way they are in real life.
Most photogs use slow shutter speeds to blur the water and create an aetherial feel.
Others use polarizing filters to inaccurately, but aesthetically reproduce vibrant colors.

This subject was being discussed on another forum and one photog pointed out the NPAA ethics rules do not prohibit the use of photoshop to enhance, just inaccurately represent. For example, removing a person from the background because they are distracting.
There are times when digital manipulation is allowed; in Ethiopia during the Clinton administration a PJ captured a photo of an American soldier being dragged by a crowd and his penis was slightly exposed.
The New York Times ran the photo but edited the penis out.
There was a different perspective that they had, but it was not as powerful and moving, so they just fixed the photo.

[Turn]

I think Paparazzi and stalkers give photography a bad name.
like I'm very conscious when children are around because I know guaranteed if my camera is pointed to the the parents are going to either say something or give me a death stare.