Photo Essay: Editing = Better Stories?

Group members: Alysson Rae Gomez, Ariana Espinoza, Jameson Lee

***

In Dona Schwartz's essay, Professional Oversight: Policing the Credibility of Photojournalism, she presents the issue of editing as it is used in the news business. Are newspapers justified in their use of digital manipulation, regardless of how minor it might be, to render a photograph a "more accurate" representation of the report?

There is the famous and coined saying,

"A picture is worth a thousand words."

which explains perfectly how powerful a visual image is. While most people agree that written reports do not nearly encompass the fullness of a news event as a photograph does, writers have the option of using certain words to convey specific meanings to the reader. In the same manner, photographers have the freedom to capture any specific aspect of an event to more accurately represent the entirety of what happened -- which is why I do not think that editing, except for the standard methods such as burning, cropping, toning, and dodging, is acceptable. Anything more, especially anything that requires extended use of Photoshop, should not be used in lieu of "more accurately" representing an event. To that reason, I ask: What could be more accurate than the actual event being captured simply to represent itself?

As the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) state in their "Statement of Principle," and I quote from the article,

"As photojournalists, we have the responsibility to document society and to preserve its images as a matter of historical record. ... Accurate representation is the benchmark of our profession" (35).

Newspapers and reputable magazines are trusted by the public for their credibility. The public assumes that these intelligible sources will do little to alter reality, with the objective to present reality as it is. But, as Schwartz mentions in her article, even the idea of reality is questioned of being either the reality as the camera sees it or reality as the human eye sees it (45). Obviously, the human eye sees in greater depth and color than the camera lens could ever capture, but does it justify employing the use of HDR in order to make a photograph as close to the reality of the human eye's witness as possible?

Here are two photographs that capture the same sunset. I have placed them side-by-side in order to show a clearer comparison between the original and the edited.

The left photograph shows the original version, while the right photograph shows the edited version.

The caption of the right photograph explains that HDR was used to enhance the colors in the image in order to represent a more accurate sunset as the human eye would see it. This reasoning is understandable and maybe even plausible, however, given the fact that this photograph was published in a newspaper, it does not present an accurate image because the reader knows that what the camera originally captured is not nearly as saturated as this. It is unethical to digitally manipulate a photograph, even if it might be in an attempt to match the camera's color perception to a human eye's perception, because a camera will never be a human eye, thus it cannot reproduce exactly what the human eye is capable of seeing. Newspapers know this, which is why issues of ethical photographic editing arise.

Dona Schwartz mentions in her article that "organizations such as the NPPA ... acknowledge that news reports, whether written, spoken, or photographed (still or moving), represent rather than duplicate events" (46). Having this kind of understanding, the practice of digital editing beyond the standard is done in an attempt to duplicate an event, rather than representing it. If newspapers desired to merely represent an event, any practice of digital editing is a move towards making a photograph more aesthetically pleasing to the reader's eye, rather than accurate -- which is the case shown in the picture below:

In this photo, reality is manipulated and accuracy sacrificed in lieu of "intensity". This photo seeks to duplicate the event by merging two photographs together to capture the event as it happened at different times, even if the difference is only in mere seconds or minutes. Why not just post two photographs? Or pick one that you think better represents the event and the written report?

Digital manipulation, a.k.a "editing," has been utilized (and is being utilized) more often in order to better "tell stories". Compromising accuracy for duplication or aesthetic purposes accomplishes little in lieu of actually getting a story across to the reader. However way a photograph looks, its main purpose, especially in the field of photojournalism, is to be as unbiased, honest, and credible as possible for the reader that expects accuracy and truth. Let us not edit to twist the truth.