Let the arguments begin!
The caption for the photo at right, part of an article about digital editing for photojournalists at BJP Online, reads: “Yuri Kozyrev’s iconic image of the Libyan conflict went through the hands of the post-processing lab 10b before it was published to critical acclaim by Time magazine, due, in part, to its tones colours and contrast. Images © Yuri Kozyrev / Noor for Time.”
I’m very old school both in chronological measurements and philosophical degrees.
The standard code of ethics for today’s digital photojournalists is really no different than what it was for those of us who traveled through the film era with a broadly proscribed limitation on what was permissible in a darkroom, to the digital age where the prohibitions are no more stringent than before.
There are several differences worthy of note.
Although almost all news photographers who shot film chose Kodak Tri-X for their daily work. It was a different tune in the darkroom.
If you could walk into any newspaper darkroom today, that is, if there were any remaining, you’d find a myriad of printing paper types ranging from very high contrast to Poly-Contrast with a o filter. Most paper types were intended to modify the contrast so the photographer, who typically made their own prints for the paper, could choose the way he wanted the news photo to look.
Sitting beside the enlarger were a collection of stiff wires, usually coat hangers wires purloined from the news room closet, with varying sizes and shapes of thin cardboard taped to their ends. These dodging tools allowed manipulation of small sections of the print by blocking the light to keep darker sections from going dark.
Also at the side were large sheets of thin cardboard with a variety of oddly holes cut in them. This is where the small pieces came from to make the previous set of tools. These sheets were used to burn in sections of a print to darken them to bring out detail or tone.
When neither tool was the right size or shape, photographers simply placed their hands above the print paper and like the game of wall shadows, formed the right opening or shadow to alter the print’s density.
When you had the time and inclination, it wasn’t unusual to watch as a photographer printed on variable contrast paper using several different contrast filters for different sections of the print. Clouds might get a higher contrast filter while the farm fields would get a flatter filter and the farmer at right in the frame would be normal contrast.
The final step was Spotone, a grey ink or pencil used to cover scratches and dust on the final prints
Now, on my computer, I have access to the same tools. Only this time they are in Photoshop.
These tools are nothing more than electronic versions of darkroom tools. They are more sophisticated, complex, and capable than the wired dodgers, holey paper, and crunched fingers of my hands from the darkroom days.
I burn. I dodge. I clone. I layer. I mask. And I adjust contrast, vibrance, brightness, midtones, and exposure as part of the normal editing process.
What I don’t do is alter the content. That was forbidden in the darkroom. It is forbidden with digital images.
I know photographers from both generations who were punished for failing to follow the code of ethics. One for pasting a basketball cutout from another print on an action photo that didn’t have one. Another for removing objects that were distracting in his original digital image.
If you still wonder about 10b’s ethics, check the photo at right. I know many a photographer who would have wanted to use Spotone to remove the errant thread or clone out the objectionable white line across his head.
I know few who would have.
No related posts.
