THE BLURRED IMAGE OF NEWS PHOTOGRAPHY
By Bruno Ingemann, assosiate professor, ph.d., at Communications Studies, Roskilde University, Denmark © 1994.
This is the second chapter in my book 'The Blurred image of news photograhy' which is not published in english but in Danish. The Danish titel is 'Fotografiet under pres. Mellem realisme og konstruktion', Roskilde UniversitetsForlag 1996.
A Turner painting is hanging on the wall in front of me at the Tate Gallery. The motif is the rough sea, and in the middle of the picture there is a steamer under pressure of the huge waves and the stormy weather. The painting is very expressive and gives me as a viewer an impression of how tough it is to be at sea and of the disaster which occurs when nature conquers ship and man.
What surprises me was the label attached to the painting. It says "Ariel
1842" - and then it says that William Turner had stressed being
true to nature and had painted what he saw: "I wished to show what
such a scene was like". When we go to an art gallery we don't expect
the paintings or the photographs to represent reality. We don't look
for truth in the pictures. We expect the images at the gallery to be
subjective and expressive and the conventions in the gallery to be more
open and different from the conventions of photographs in newspapers.
But in this case Turner himself insisted on realism in the picture,
and on truth. He has depicted the situation as close to reality as possible
and not as an interpretation. But when I look at the painting it is
far from the realism of photographs. Turner has rendered his own interpretation
of the event, and I see it more as the interpretation of the artist
than as a neutral and objective depiction of reality.
I went outside the Tate Gallery, and in a street nearby I saw a photographer
taking a real picture of reality. The motif was a man and a woman. They
were sitting on the street leaning against a black wall. Around them
there were many cardboard boxes filled with clothes and plastic bags.
They were just sitting there staring out into the air. The photographer
wanted to take a picture of the homeless people who live in the streets.
That was my impression at first glance. But then I looked once again
and became curious.
Was it really a newspaper photographer taking a picture and trying to
document how the homeless live? Something was wrong. On the left of
the photographer there were more cardboard boxes and a pile of clothes.
This was not part of the situation being photographed. The photographer
had an assistant who stood to the right by the flash. The photographer
was using a Hasselblad on a tripod which is very unusual for a newspaper
photographer. All these tokens indicate that the situation was staged
and that the photographer probably was an advertising photographer.
That the purpose of the picture was to create a picture to be used in
an ad.
But was my reading of the tokens correct? Or was it really a newspaper
photographer at work? The myth of the press photographer as someone
running around with his Nikon or Leica taking pictures with the available
light; shooting pictures by chance and trying to find the decisive moment;
finding the real people in the real situations and shooting them when
they were unaware of being photographed. This myth was being questioned.
What I happened to see this day in March in London, was it the real
picture of the working conditions of the newspaper photographer? If
this was true, I was sad, like you always are when one of your myths
is questioned.
If this was the production of a news photograph, with all this staging
and set up, could it be that other or maybe even all news photographs
were made the same way?
Then I remembered a videotape I once saw. A CIA agent was talking about
misinformation. He had been placed in an African country where the US
wanted to disrupt the situation in the country using all means. It was
his job to tell horrible stories about how the government treated the
population in the country. He made up stories about how the government
terrorized and killed innocent people and arranged photographs that
could show what had happened. In the videotape they showed articles
that had been published in the western media. The press agencies had
accepted the stories and given them their stamp of approval, and the
well established newspapers had used the stories.
The attitude of the CIA agent frightened me. From his point of view
it was all right, and he was proud of his job. He could see no problem
in creating reality. The purpose was good because it served the US government
interest in that African country, and he thought that he was very successful
in doing his job. He thought that it was very easy to make reality and
to get it accepted because there were no other western »journalists«
in the region and there were no other sources of information for the
western media.
When you realize that some information and photos are created, or arranged
or staged, you may get worried. You may be aware of the possibility
that pictures and information from areas you can't control yourself
may be providing misinformation. What can you then believe in? If you
look at your daily newspaper, you must realize that very little of the
information and pictures presented are close enough to your daily life
for you to have any concret experience and knowledge about them. You
can't check on the information and photos, and you must rely on what
you are told.
On the first of April you can say April Fool when you have deceived
someone. You tell them something that could be true and make them believe
that you are telling the truth. But at the same time we all know that
on this day people are doing just that, so you expect to be fooled.
On April 1st the Danish TV news has a tradition of making up one story
that is fake. The effect on the viewer is that you are very aware that
the producers will try to cheat you, so you will question all the stories
told. When you do so, you will find that there is more than one story
that could be the joke. You can find 3 or 4 stories that make you ask
the question: is this really true?
On the second of April you are back again: you don't ask questions,
and you accept the stories told. One could wish that all 365 days in
the year were like April Fool's Day; that every day we would be critical
and question the news.
COMPUTER
MANIPULATION OF IMAGES
The problem
of truth in photography has increased in recent years. The computer
is the problem, or the problem has become important because of the introduction
of the computer.
One can scan in a photo, and when the image is digitalized all the elements
in the picture have been transformed to pixels that can be manipulated.
You can take away a person you don't want to have in the picture and
this transformation of the picture can be done so elegantly that no
one can see what has been done. Of course this could also be done by
a professional and skillful retoucher by hand, but the computer has
made it easier to do and more people can get the skills to do it. The
democratization of this process has put a powerful tool in the hands
of everyone that has an ordinary computer and a couple of cheap programs.
A few years ago it meant a million dollar investment in Scitex equipment,
but today you only have to spend a few thousand dollars and you are
ready to roll.
You can paint away disturbing elements: trees, telephone wires, cars,
persons, houses. Or you can add elements to the picture. You can take
a person from one picture and place this person in another situation
with other people that he has never been in touch with in places he
has never been. The man on the sunny beach may never have been on that
beach. The final picture has been constructed from two different pictures.
As long as the constructor keeps the traditional photographic space
and tries to hide the composite elements in the picture, the final result
will look like a photo that has been taken ? but all the elements are
composed and integrated in the computer.
The photographer can be reduced to a professional who delivers the raw
material for the making of photos.
Up till now the photographer still makes his negative which can be seen
as the original for the final print. But the electronic camera has been
introduced. The image will then only exist in electronic form and will
be transmitted to the computer for viewing and adaption. There will
no longer exist any original negative, only copies. The shots can be
erased when the pictures have been used, and no one can ever say what
the »right&laqno; picture was.
This is reality. Manipulation of photography has already been used in the media. The famous example is from 1982 where the cover photo of National Geographic showed two pyramids in Egypt. In the photo the two pyramids were moved closer to each other. It was a very simple thing to do technically, but the reaction when it became public was immense.
This was a step away from the traditional understanding of photographs
as telling the truth. This physical interference with the original photo
was much more than that. It was an interruption of the conventions of
photography. If one accepted this rearranged image it would be like
opening a Pandora's box of ethical dilemmas for magazines, newspapers
and their readers. No longer would pictures be taken as a 'proof' of
anything. Every picture used would be scrutinized by an already cynical
public.
The overwhelming reaction to this ethical dilemma has been that journalists,
photographers and editors deny any form of manipulation. "We never
do it". But if we do manipulate a picture, then the picture must
be labelled very clearly. The label could be "composite picture",
"Cluttering details have been removed from the photograph",
"Details of the child's clothing have been changed"... And
finally the editors and the photographer should discuss the ethical
problems when they want to manipulate a picture. And here respect for
the actual event and the people involved has special significance.
But we already know hundreds of manipulated pictures that have been
used in magazines and newspapers. Can human beings restrict themselves
to rules like these and observe them? When the possibilites are easily
accessible, can one resist using them? Has Pandora's box already been
opened, and is it impossible to close it again?
While a spot survey in the US of editors, art directors and picture
editors at major newspapers nationwide found no one who supported the
notion of using digital technology to tamper with the integrity of a
documentary news photograph, there was a far greater acceptance of using
it to create conceptual or illustrative photos.
The distinction is far from academic. Documentary photographs aim to
portray real events in true-to-life settings. Conceptual photos are
meant to symbolize an idea or evoke a mood. Because a studio shot of
say, a truffle is more akin to a still life than to the hard-edge realism
of photojournalism ? indeed, because the shot is staged in the first
place ? art directors and page designers are given a wide latitude in
altering its content.
What is happening, many photographers and picture editors fear, is that
the distinction between the two styles gets blurred, partly due to the
new technology. This means a quiet shift towards pictures as ornamentation
or entertainment rather than reportage.
George Wedding of the Bee sees a trend towards increased reliance
on conceptual photos, caused in part by the recent influence into newsrooms
of art directors and designers who take their visual cues from art schools
and the advertising field, where manipulation is the name of the game.
Wedding says that "these people have not been taught the traditional,
classic values and goals of documentary photojournalism."
The professionals insist: The photograph never lies. It is a fingerprint
of reality. It is trustworthy and this must never be changed.
How does the ordinary reader react?
INTERVIEW ON ETHICS
One of the wellknown faked pictures is the one with Lenin and Trotsky, 1917. In the original picture Trotsky stands on the stairs with another man. In the manipulated picture Trotsky has been removed. The picture has been retouched by hand and Trotsky is out of history. What is your opinion of that kind of manipulation of photographs?
Alice: - When I see the two pictures together I can see what
has been done, but if I had only seen the manipulated picture, I would
believe that in this situation Lenin was delivering a speech in a town
with a big building in the back of the picture. A lot of people were
standing very close to the platform and one man at the stairs. I would
believe that photo, certainly I would.
- But when you show me both pictures I can see what has happened.
I can see that Trotsky has been removed and I think it is wrong to do
so. What has been in front of the camera must never be changed. I think
that the photograph is a proof of what the photographer has seen. He
is a neutral and objective witness and his job is to reflect reality
as well as he can.
- I expect to be able to trust the photographer and I expect
that the photograph is telling the truth. It is of course a picture
from the totalitarian communist regime and they have always decided
what the truth is.
Barney: ? A picture itself can never manipulate reality. This
manipulation is a part of the fake of history. Trotsky was removed from
this picture, but he was removed from the history book too. Trotsky
was made a non-existing person.
- I would say that at a higher level the faked picture tells
one truth; the one that supports the notion that there has never been
a man named Trotsky. And from that point of view the original picture
was not the truth about the history in Soviet in the 20's and 30's.
- It is not a question about the picture itself but about the context;
the situation in which it has been used. I think it is unethical to
remove a man and make him invisible in the history books. But if someone
physically changes this picture is not very important.
- If the photographer had taken the picture 30 seconds before or after
the actual moment, Trotsky could have stepped down the stairs and the
original picture would then show only Lenin at the platform.
Cindy: - How do we know that this is Lenin and Trotsky? We can't
see it in the picture? What is possible to see is that there are differents
objects on the plane surface: persons, buildings, a platform...
- For me these objects have no relations to reality; or I might say
that I can't see this picture as a proof of that situation.
Alice: - Do you really mean that there is no difference between
the original picture and the faked picture? The original one is a true
representation of an event that has happened in reality!
Cindy: - It's a picture! The only thing it can represent is itself.
One of the objects in the picture looks like a man, one of the objects
looks like a platform and so on. At this level the photograph can be
seen as a realistic depiction of the objects. But to say that this is
Lenin and this is Trotsky is to go too far. It can't be them, it can
only be a visual depiction in black, white and gray that looks like
the two men or that look like other pictures about which we say looks
like them.
Alice: - Is it really your opinion that even the original picture
is not real?
Cindy: - I think that the picture is real; but the so called
»original&laqno; picture is as much a fake or a true picture
as the manipulated picture. But this discussion is difficult because
I disagree on your fundamental presumptions. I think that pictures are
pictures and the whole idea of the discussion about this one-to-one
reference to reality is without any interest. Pictures can only refer
to other pictures.
I will show you two more pictures from this series of Lenin&Trotsky. The third one in this series shows the platform, but now Lenin has been removed, and on the fourth one George Bush has taken the place of Lenin.
Barney: - The whole series of four pictures shows the development
in reality: The men of the communist revolution, the change in history
and the invisible Trotsky, the recent rejection of communism and of
Lenin as the hero of the revolution and then the influence of capitalism
represented by George Bush.
- The last three pictures are obviously manipulated when we see them
all together, and as far as I can see they all together represent and
point out a trustworthy image of the factual events in the Soviet Union.
- I agree with Cindy that whether the picture is false or true in itself
is not important. But I disagree somewhat with her rejection of the
relation to reality. I think that how the pictures are used is very
important. When the picture of the missing Trotsky is used by the Soviet
historian to make him invisible, then I think the factual content has
been transformed into something that in this context can be said to
be a lie.
- When the four pictures are used in an article in a newspaper where
the intention is to tell about the development in Soviet I would say
that the pictures are here used to tell a history that is trustworthy
and based on facts.
Cindy: - Can anyone say what the facts are? I would say that
every article in the newspaper is fiction based on the perception of
one or more people and that all perception is unconscious interpretations
of reality. All the articles in newspapers are stories, and the photos
that are used are part of these fictional stories.
Alice: - There must be a difference between stories that are
totally invented as in a novel and stories that are based on what has
really happened as in journalism?
- When I see the four pictures together, I get confused. They all look
like real photographs, but which of them can I believe in? I can see
that it is impossible for George Bush to really be there in an old photo.
The only way I can give meaning to the pictures is to say that they
are caricatures, which means that I don't believe them as real photographs
but as pictures that are made to point out a certain view of the events.
- My confusion? If I only see one of the pictures I would believe in
it as a reflection of reality but when I see them all I get into trouble.
What am I supposed to believe? Someone is trying to persuade me to look
at the events is a specific way, and I have no concrete experiences
about the Soviet Union.
Cindy: - The four pictures can be seen as a joke or an allegory.
What is important for me is that I get stimulated by the picture. They
make me recall other images in my memory.
That sounds interesting. When you say that the pictures recall other
images, can you elaborate a little more on that?
Cindy: - The strategy in the four pictures is political. 85 years
of Sovjet history are present in the pictures. And in my mind there
is the question: "What's next?". I recall a story told by
Ong in his book about oral cultures.
- Some British antrophologist in Ghana recorded a story they were told
about the history of the country. The King had seven sons, and the kingdom
was divided into seven parts when he died. Thirteen years later the
antrophologist visited the country again and the same story was told.
But there was one difference: The king had only five sons and the country
was devided into five parts. What had happened was that the story being
told now reflected the actual situation: the country was no longer divided
into seven parts but into five, and the story had been changed to agree
with the actual situation.
Here is another photograph. It shows a woman and a child falling, and the caption is: "The 19 year old girl and her 2 years old niece fall down from a fire escape stair from the fifth floor in Boston. The niece lived."
Alice: - It's a terrible picture to look at. You know that she
is falling into death and that makes me sad. I can identify with her
and her situation, and I think about the fact that we all can be hit
by a tile or something. The picture is more startling because she has
been recorded in the air before she hits the ground. I would like to
stop her in her fall.
Cindy: - I look at the flowerpot. It's the only reconciling element
in the whole picture. It is the point that can take away the tension
of the situation.
Barney: - Yes, and the child. How did she survive this terrible
fall?
Cindy: - This is a very expressive photograph. We are all asking
ourselves what has happened before. Why did they jump out into the air?
What was so terrifying that they had chosen to do something that was
dangerous? And we all think about what is going to happen when they
hit the ground. How is the child falling and why did she survive and
the woman not?
If we suppose that the picture is constructed, because the photographer didn't get the picture when the real accident took place, would it makes any difference in your understanding of the picture? We could say that the building is from one photograph. The fall of the two persons is staged and accomplished by a stuntwoman and a stuntchild and shot in two separate situations and the flowerpot is the fourth separate shot. All these shots are combined by the help of a computer.
Barney: - It would be so expensive to make a picture like this,
and I don't think it would be done that way, but still. For me it won't
change my impression of the picture. It is still a terrible picture.
But what I will expect is that the story is precise. That there has
been an accident where a woman and a child have fallen five stories
and that she died and the child lived. I will also expect that the building
is or looks like the building in the real situation.
- You could say that the picture is a lie because it does not refer
directly to the real persons and the real situation, but for me this
picture is used to tell about what actually happened, and I will believe
in the picture in that context.
Alice: - If it is indeed possible to construct a picture that
looks so realistic, I get scared. If I find out that it was constructed,
all the impact of the picture will disappear. Then it is all fiction,
and I don't believe in fiction in the same manner as in facts. It would
be a reconstruction of what has happened, and I would never believe
in a reconstruction.
- I think it is very dangerous. When I get suspicious of the truth in
photographs I lose my trust in words too. I know that words can be manipulated
and that an article in a newspaper is told and interpreted by the journalist.
But the photograph has its own truth. As long as it records the actual
people in the actual events at the right place, then I see it as a true
picture of reality. This is the convention I have learned from the newspaper,
and I expect that the photographer and editors live up to my expectations
and do their job.
Do you have any comments to the view presented by Barney where he
accepts the manipulation as long as it is rooted in the event.
Alice: - I think you are too open, Barney. How is it possible
for me as an ordinary reader to decide whether or not the factual events
are depicted in the picture? I can't know if the event has indeed happened?
The journalist can say so, and if the picture is constructed then there
are no fixed points to stick to. The real documentary photographs proves
that the event has happened as I can see it in the picture. If the relation
between picture and reality is broken - what's left?
Cindy: - The relation between picture and reality is broken.
What is left is that you have to look at all texts and pictures as symbolic
modes of expression. What counts is the expression of the photograph
and its ability to engage a viewer in the picture. And I get involved.
I lend the picture a past and a present, and in that sense the picture
involves me as it involves you, as you said Alice, when you saw it the
first time.
- A part of this involvement is all the other pictures we have seen.
All the falling people we have seen in the so-called fiction film. But
it also evokes images we have from dreams of ourselves falling into
empty space or to the ground. This floating and gliding in the air and
then the fall like in the myth of Ikaros who waxed feathers to his arms
and could fly. He got too close to the sun and fell down to his death
in the sea.
Barny: - I think that is going too far. This photograph is a
depiction of something that has happened, and it involves me because
it has these persons involved in an actual event that has really happened.
It is not pure fiction but has it basis in a real situation. For me
it is anchored in reality and this anchorage is important. I can't accept
the fact that a photograph that is said to be a picture of reality has
no relation to this reality. The picture can be made, but nevertheless
it has to tell the right story as far as possible to give information
about this event.
When you look at all the editorial photographs in a newspaper do
you see any difference in them? There are of course different motives
and different events and persons ? but do you believe in all the photographs
in the same way?
Barney: - I know that the editors divide the editorial pictures
in documentary news photos and feature photos, but for me there is no
difference. I mean I don't believe more or less in the one kind of photographs
than in the other.
- But of course there is a difference. The most important one is that
the feature photos are more conceptual and are used with the intention
of symbolizing an idea or evoking a mood. Which means that I as a reader
have to make an interpretation of the picture and that the picture is
no longer seen as a one-to-one representation of reality. One could
say that more realities become visible in the feature photos.
Cindy: - They are all pictures. I don't think the one is more
true or false than the other or refers more or less to reality. When
I see my daily newspaper I find that many of the so-called documentary
photos are boring. They can't live up to the standard of the pictures
in the advertising which surrounds the editorial material. The feature
photos are more evocative of feelings, emotions and ideas.
Alice: - Surprise, surprise! I agree with Barney. I can't see
the difference between documentary and feature photographs. For me they
are all photographs of the same kind. I see them all as reflections
of reality and I want to trust them all. What has been in front of the
photographer is what he records.
- You take away all my ideas and my beliefs about the use of photography
in newspapers by arguing that it is all the same no matter wether the
photograph is staged, arranged, constructed or manipulated. But I don't
want you to. I want to stay in my trust that what I see is what I believe,
even if it's a bit naive. And I will fight against every attempt to
undermine the meaning of photography. If all these manipulations are
allowed, if someone just uses such a manipulation one time in a newspaper,
I am afraid of the consequences.
If someone does use a computer-manipulated photograph in a newspaper,
would it be a good idea to give it a label like: "Composite Photo"
or "This picture has been manipulated by a computer "?
- All: "No!".
Alice: - First of all the editors must avoid such manipulation.
If they make the manipulation and use the picture then I think there
is a problem. If I see a picture that looks like a photograph then I
read the picture first as a photograph and believe in the picture. I
may not read the caption, and then I would miss this important information
that would have made me more critical. But if manipulations become a
daily practice, then I would be more aware of it and try to remember
to read the label. But I hope I never will get into that situation.
If you had the opportunity to use a computer and you yourself could
try to manipultate a photograph: move around some part of the picture
or remove another completly ? would this practice appeal to you?
Barney: - I would love it. It could really be fun to make your
own manipulations.
Cindy: - Me too.
Alice: - I would like to try. But as I have said I would be a
little afraid. I think it could be fun to practice, but then? I don't
want to lose my innocence and I am afraid that could happen. But I could
understand the possibilities and problems in making manipulations, and
then I maybe would be more aware of what the professionals could do.
Cindy: - I think it is important for all people to understand
and try these possibilities, and if this practice changes people's attitude
to photography I can't see it as a problem but more as a challenge.
Barney: - One could call it computer literacy. I am not so sure
that the young generation has a trust in photography. They have tried
to produce video tapes, and they already know that it is impossible
to capture reality on tape. They know that they have to tell stories
and that the information about an event is seen through glasses and
that this filter limits the information that is told.
A REAL INTERVIEW
Alice,
Barney and Cindy are not living persons you will find in real life.
This interview is a construction. It has been constructed by me - the
author - and they represent attitudes, views and arguments that can
be found in reality.
They are all three a part of me. There are three different views represented
in me and this discussion is not invented, but it is a real discussion
where different parts of me get a voice.
In a broader perspective I will say that we all have different voices
in our minds, and when we argue, we take up opinions and arguments that
are conflicting and which don't consist of coherent thoughts.
Bruno
Ingemann, Ph.D.,
Roskilde University,
Communication Studies,
P.O.Box 260,
DK-4000 Roskilde,
Denmark.
bruno@.ruc.dk
