PhotoshopNews.com
Apr 3, 2005

Kate doesn’t like Photoshop – Digital Ethics

In a recent article Kate Winslet is described as “not a fan of Photoshop, preferring to remain as natural and real as she is in the flesh”. The most recent brouhaha is about a movie poster for the soon to be released film Romance and Cigarettes (note, the movie’s web site currently redirects to MGM’s site).

Kate it seems, has a bit of a history with being “excessively” retouched. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say poorly-retouched. There is a difference.

The British issue of GQ magazine went too far in Kate’s opinion: “The retouching is excessive. I do not look like that and more importantly I don’t desire to look like that”.

This GQ magazine cover was digitally altered, says GQ editor Dylan Jones in this BBC report. Of the cover photo, Kate said, “I actually have a Polaroid that the photographer gave me on the day of the shoot… I can tell you they’ve reduced the size of my legs by about a third. For my money it looks pretty good the way it was taken.”

While Kate’s experience of being retouched poorly or excessively in Photoshop is not of earth shattering proportions, the subject of the ethics of digial imaging certainly is. This story is not intended to offer any definitive guidelines, but rather to open up a subject worthy of discussion. So, for the purposes of fostering that discussion, Comments & Pings have been turned on. That means any registered readers of PSN can post comments. Note: the comments will be moderated. We will not accept for publication, any comments containing profanity, vulgarity or personal attacks. The purpose of allowing Comments On is to allow people to air their views.

The ethics of manipulation goes back a long time in photographic history. In Photojournalism: An Ethical Approach by Paul Martin Lester, Hippolyte Bayard (yes, that really is his name) is credited (or blamed) for the “First Faked Photograph”. From Chapter Six–Picture Manipulations, Lester writes:

“Early photographic history is filled with artists-turned-photographers who set up situations with models and backdrops and made elaborate compositions from several negatives. Although he is seldom given credit, Frenchman, Hippolyte Bayard discovered a useful photographic process independent of Daguerre and Fox Talbot in 1839. Frustrated by the lack of recognition, Bayard made the first faked picture and caption combination in 1840. He made a photograph of himself posed as a corpse and wrote on the back of the print, ‘The Government, which has supported A Daguerre more than is necessary, declared itself unable to do anything for M. Bayard, and the unhappy man threw himself into the water in despair.’ Two years later, the Societe d’Encouragement pour I’Industrie Nationale gave Bayard a prize of 3,000 francs (Gemsheim, 1969, p. 87).”

Edward Curtis is also known to have manipulated the images he produced for his books. The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis “is one of the most significant and controversial representations of traditional American Indian culture ever produced” according to the web site that houses the Library of Congress collection of Curtis’s work.

One image in particular, In a Piegan Lodge, 1910–Volume Six, Portfolio Plate 188 is a prime example.

     
On the left is a contact print from the original neg, on the right is the image as reproduced in the folio.

     
Details of the before and after.

It seems that Curtis didn’t think the clock was “Indian enough” although the Indians pictured would have considered the clock a treasured possession.

Debating the ethics of digital manipulation is really no different than the issue of photographic manipulation or alteration in general. However, with Photoshop, a skilled retoucher can do such a good job of altering reality that there is little or no easy way to detect it.

The media is fascinated by this. Retouching and digital manipulation is the subject of considerable media self scrutiny. See the article Extremely Perfect from 48 HOURS Investigates.

Kate Betts, former editor-in-chief of Harper’s Bazaar, says most fashion pictures are retouched nowadays. But what can a good retoucher do?

“A good retoucher can basically make the person in the picture look better, enhance the way they look,” says Betts, who was also a former top fashion editor at Vogue. “They can do anything. They can open eyes wider, make them brighter, change the shape, contour the face a lot.”

As a practiced Photoshop professional, I would say this is essentially a gross understatement. While the statement : “They can do anything” is true, the explanation falls far short. By anything, it should be understood to mean quite literally – ANYTHING. The only limits are imagination, time & budget.

By way of explanation, magaizine editors often use the term “photo illustration”.

On a very recent edition of Newsweek, Martha Stewart is “pictured” on the cover. USA Today wrote about the cover, “Is it real? Or is it Martha?” and quoted Assistant managing editor Lynn Staley as saying: “Anybody who knows the (Stewart) story and is familiar with Martha’s current situation would know this particular picture was a “photo illustration”. This was supposed to validate and justify Newsweek’s alteration of Martha’s cover image. But can the term “photo illustration” conceptually compensate for the perception that the photo was “real”? Do people actually read lines of text when looking at a photographic image? Of course not. Reading and looking at photos are essentially two entirely different cognitive processes.

So, how are people expected to judge photographs today? It generally boils down to the context in which the photograph is presented. As a long time advertising photographer I can tell you that in the ad biz, pretty much anything goes. In fine art photography, the only rule is to break all rules.

In journalism, however, the stakes are considerably higher. Two years ago, this month Brian Walski, a staff photographer covering the war in Iraq was fired by the LA Times for using Photoshop to combine two separate photographs and present them as one. While he admitted that he did take two images and combine them in Photoshop to get the point he was trying to convey, Walski crossed the line set forth by the LA Times and was fired. The old adage that the camera never lies is more accurately stated as the camera always lies. But in journalism circles, what he did was the kiss of death–see Manipulating Truth, Losing Credibility by Frank Van Riper of the Washington Post.

My initial reaction when I first saw the images and heard about the controversy was to think, “that was a really bad Photoshop job”. My next reaction was why would he bother because the addition didn’t really add anything.

His dismissal was not universally condemned though. See this essay by Pedro Meyer from ZoneZero “The LA Times fires a photographer.

You decide. . .

These are the two original images. . .

that were combined to create this image.

When interviewed by Photo District News (not available online) Walski said: “When I saw it, I probably just said, no one is going to know. I don’t know. I’ve tweaked pictures before—taken out a phone pole. It’s not a common practice, but you can do it. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I imagine they’ve done it here and there. This was going overboard—taking pictures and putting them together. I think it’s just that I wanted a better image. Then when I did it, I didn’t even think about it.”

LA Times policy forbids altering the content of news photographs but doesn’t define precisely what the term “content” means, just what is acceptable and what crosses the line–and who really is qualified to judge?

The National Press Photographers Association has this policy regarding the “Digital Manipulation Code of Ethics–NPPA Statement of Principle”

Did Walski “deceive the public”? And what about Patrick Schneider of The Charlotte Observer? In 2003, three images that won awards that were rescinded by the the North Carolina Press Photographers Association. The board rules that the photos had been altered by “overly darkening some portions in the digital editing process”. Not only were the awards rescinded, Schneider was suspended for three days without pay by his employer, The Charlotte Observer. But the story is not so cut and dried.

From an essay by Pedro Meyer in ZoneZero, “In defense of photographer Patrick Schneider and the fictions of a “Code of Ethics”

Pedro says: “We find the behavior of many of the photojournalists whose names appear below who have passed very ill advised judgment on Mr Schneider, as well as many of the picture editors in their corresponding newspapers who share their views, to have reached such an incredible low point in this ongoing debate about the veracity of images in photojournalism. We might be reaching the dark ages again”.

Again, you be the judge. . .the original image is on the left, the altered image on the right.

     

     

     

Dirck Halstead of The Digital Journalist agrees with Pedro in this October 2003 editorial:

With the arrival of Photoshop, many photographers and editors suddenly started to lose their ethical compass. The most famous early example was National Geographic Magazine moving a pyramid to make for a better composition. “A Day In The Life of America” which was intended to present the best that photojournalists could produce, decided to add a moonrise above a cowboy’s head because it looked better on the cover.

And then of course, there is the famous example of Time Magazine darkening the complexion of OJ Simpson. In short order photographers and even editors found that they ignored “reality” at their peril. The most infamous recent example was the photograph that was digitally manipulated by LA Times photographer Brian Walski in Iraq. Generally, the ethical standard on manipulation has been clearly understood by photojournalists. You simply may not remove or add elements to a photograph that were not there. Do it, and you get fired, and have a really hard time finding another job.

However, the issue of dodging and burning, which harkens back to the old days of wet darkrooms never really has been a big issue. This was considered to be “artistic license” and in many cases was encouraged.

But suddenly the gods of political correctness have descended in North Carolina, saying “you can’t do that any more!” Well, I’ve got news. We are just arriving at the tip of the ethical iceberg.

As a result of the Schneider controversy as well as public scrutiny, NPPA has issued a revised and “Modernized” Code of Ethics.

Number 6 says: “Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context.”

Does that clear things up for you?

So we find ourselves in a dilemma–we have wonderful tools to create images, new digital cameras and photographic digital printers and powerful tools such as Photoshop and we are expected to do what–nothing? I don’t think so.

I’ll be the first to admit that this is both a perplexing and complicated issue. I’ll also suggest that nothing written now or in the near future will put an end to the debate–there are no simple solutions to problems as complex as these. I will suggest, however, that the ultimate answer may distill down to a question of honesty, integrity and oddly enough, Photoshop skills–knowing how to do only those things you really want to do with the discipline to go no further.

Regardless of what you are doing though, I would encourage craftmanship and skill. And, for heaven’s sake, if you are retouching a photo of Kate Winslet, do a good job. She’s had more than her fair share of poor Photoshop experiences.

11 Responses to “Kate doesn’t like Photoshop – Digital Ethics”

  1. Bob Roberts Says:

    Really, we are in a world that makes this type of “retouching” much easier than ever before. However, one of the most common forms of retouching that we see today, and I’m referring to magazine covers, is meant to sell the product. From an ethical standpoint if a subject does not/does require retouching then a contract should be administered specifying the who, where, and how. (My comments are not referring to advertorial.) For people like me the fun of retouching with programs such as Photoshop is over. I’m no longer the giddy student who wants to create a three-eyed monster. It’s merely a tool and thankfully, a tool that I enjoy. The tools are not the culprit. The blame should be placed on users who often get carried away emotionally and ethically. For example, does anyone for a moment think that the hammer was devised as a tool to kill? Curiously, it would be interesting to visit http://merriam-webster.com and look up the definition of a hammer. I would be hard pressed to think that “weapon of murder” or the sort would be listed.

    As far as master photographers go Gene Smith manipulated his images quite extensively.; Ansel Adams did it quite miraculously with his “Moonrise” image, quite differently than when it was originally printed; and Cartier-Bresson handed his images over to someone else to be printed even under his watchful eye.

    So the author takes take his hammer and hits content on the head when he mentions honesty, integrity and skills. I agree with the first two but take opposition to the “skills” part. Counterfeiters have skills and really should leave well enough alone. Here I would suggest a substitution: “ethics.” The most fragile modification can change “truth” into something else.

    In addendum there was an article originally published in the ’80s by E. Sapwater and K. Wood. It was later brought up-to-date in the mid-90s in PHOTO Electronic Imaging. The second version is listed at the following URL: http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/402/mintzref.html: Toward on-line, worldwide access to Vatican Library materials – References.

    The original manuscript was inside a magazine that was given away at the old Digital Imaging conference. I have their original “Observations & Solutions taped to my old Mac IIc. Even though it might be a little dated what it said has probably kept a lot of old photographer like myself out of trouble. I have typed it for my post.

    1. Include creator’s name, address/ photo # and other pertinent information with copyright on all distributable discs and hard copy images and graphics.
    2. Images left on hard drive should include the copyright symbol in the title. Example: © J. Williams:: Cat Image. (The copyright symbol can usually be found on a Macintosh by holding down the option key and pushing the G key.)
    3. Use Stuffit, a Macintosh utility program, for image compression and include all copyright information in the “Comments” section.
    4. Do not manipulate any images without permission.
    5. Do not copy or scan images unless for your own in-house pleasure.
    6. When images are scanned with permission, give credit to the originator or creator.
    7. Always get permission in writing.
    8. COnsider the photograph/image to be a document and then ask, “Is changing any part, small or large, modifying the truth?”
    9. Read and understand Information Services’ and bulletin boards’ copyright stand concerning up-loading and downloading images and other copyrightable materials. Ask yourself “Do these information services protect my rights if I upload graphics?
    10. Respect others’ rights.
    11. If you feel you must borrow, contact the publisher, photographer, stock agency or advertiser.
    12. Research and understand market pricing structures before sharing or borrowing images. (See box on stock agency pricing.)
    13. Produce model releases that pertain to image manipulation.
    14. Retain an attorney that understands the law and what the future may hold.
    15. If you are a photographed subject:
    Before signing model releases read the type carefully and add or clarify anything you might find unclear or absent.

    All said, I welcome HDTV. This way there’s no amount of retouching, makeup, plastic surgery, or well being that will be able to hide those wrinkles, crow’s feet, and acne scars.

  2. pxlfxr Says:

    Some things are clear…others as clear as fog. Integrity is not an easy thing to define. What enhances, what deceives? Questions for us all.

  3. mlorne Says:

    What strikes me initially about this story is the desire on the part of the publication to maintain the originality of the image, as if that were some truth written in stone. However, as any first year philosophy student will tell you, the very act of taking the picture is an activity pregnant with subjective judgements on the part of the photographer. His/her choice of focal length, composition, colour or black and white, selective focus and in camera cropping say just as much about the subject as it does about the photographer. At what point are we to recognize that the ordering, or in this case the re-ordering, of the world is an inescapable fact of human existence and an integral part of the act of photography.

  4. Harron Says:

    Terrific article, Jeff.

    A couple of thoughts:

    1. Retouching and the attendant ethical dilemmas are nothing new. Digital retouching is causing the current furor because applications such as Photoshop are making it possible to do things that simply were not worth the time and effort in the past.

    2. Related to the above is the question of what is an “original.” With film, faking an original was nearly impossible. Kate has a Polaroid from the shoot, and that leaves GQ no choice but to admit the shot was altered. But what about images captured by digital cameras?

    Photographers routinely offload images from their memory cards to other media and then erase the cards for reuse. “Digital film” is a convenient concept, but, clearly, the analogy breaks down at the point of erasure. A skilled technician should be able to endow an altered image with all the earmarks of an “original,” thereby confounding digital forensics specialists.

    I don’t know. Are photojournalists required to hand in their “original” memory cards? If not, how is anyone other than the photographer supposed to know? And, more to mlorne’s point, are a photographer’s decisions anyone else’s business?

  5. PhotoshopNews Editor Says:

    Good comments, thanks

    A couple of points, as noted in the artocle, this issue is nothing new. . .and it won’t be solved in a sigle fell swoop. But, in many respected, the problem has intensified.

    As Dirk points out, the standards seem to be a moving target–so how are photographers to know?

  6. Dave Says:

    Interesting article. I’ve just scratched the surface in learning Photoshop…mainly resizing and cropping to send images through email. I’ve tweaked a few for fun, but pride myself in leaving my best photos relatively unretouched. But this is from a strictly artistic POV.

    I can see no reason for news photos to be photoshopped.

  7. Bill Says:

    The news media is finally being exposed for the ‘big lie’: that journalism is somehow a nobly objective field. Photographers and Copy writers have always seen the world through their own biased filter, as does EVERYONE. One person’s artistic sensitivity is another person’s manipulation. The mere choice made when framing part of a scene is adding bias. Add to this fact the recent transformation of media from information to edutainment to entertainment to profit margins, and it is a wonder that anyone believes what they read and see in the media at all.

    Perhaps in some ideal world, everyone is noble, polite, and honestly presents the information they have to others without thought of personal gain or manipulating the opinions of others. Judging from the journalists I have met, the news media is the last place I would expect to find reason and objectivity.

    That the average Joe and Jane Q. Public are finally realizing this is what the brouhaha is REALLY all about. We are not so much losing freedom of the press in this country as we are losing the ideal that the ‘press’ once stood for. And whose fault is that? The public’s? Give me a break.

  8. Megan Says:

    I agree. I do not think that digital enhancement should be used in this way. However, it should be encouraged to be used by responsible indaviduals

  9. Martin Kelly Says:

    I enjoyed the article.
    I work for a major magazine publisher in New York. In my work, I educate all our magazines art, photo and production departments on what is accepted and what is not. Basically, news articles are NOT RETOUCHABLE. I don’t even want to see a telephone pole removed. Fashion and beauty do get retouched but only to enhance colour saturation or improve exposure so that detail can be clearly seen in a printed magazine. As far as the frankenstein celebrity shots, I know this has happened frequently in the past. It was usualy the result of celebrities failing to turn up for a shoot and having no options left to put something on the cover – or the publicist sending the same picture to all of the magazines which clearly is not good. So – it wasn’t done to fool anyone or to embarrass any celebrities. The re-shaping of Kate’s legs is not acceptable in my honest opinion as she clearly is a shapely lass.
    I recommend that an image that is manipulated beyond simple enhancements be credited as photo illustrations.

  10. robert.niblock Says:

    very good article has helped a great deal in my photoshop
    thesis

  11. Timdesuyo Says:

    Megan, define “responsible indaviduals.”
    Grammar Police aside, that there is certainly a trick.

    Dave, there is a simple reason why news photographs must be photoshopped, or put into some similar program. Humans don’t generally have the ability to translate the binary code into a picture. Most professionals now shoot in RAW, which means that they are either using Photoshop to open, and “develop” the photo to begin with, or using their particular camera’s propriatary software. Even with a JPG, you would still need to correct for the particular printing process and media (newsprint/photo paper/shiny happy fax machine paper and whatnot)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.