Reality check: Old School photographer [Stanley Greene Interview]

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How many 'enemies' have been erased from analogue photographs for sake of propaganda? Nothing news under the sun.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lars_bergquist]

A hammer does not lie. A pen does not lie. Tools do not lie. People lie.

 

And we are being lied to, not only by propagandists and self-aggrandizers, but by our own selves -- by our senses. We live in a constructed world. The path, not to TRVTH but in the truthful direction, lies in learning to understand how these lies work, what they do, and why some are legitimate and some not.

 

The keyboard under my fingers is 99.999 ...+ % emptiness. Still, I perceive it as solid matter. What I perceive is not the infinitesimal amount of solid matter, but the force fields between the particles. These prevent me from ramming my fist straight through my MacBook and the tabletop. They also mean that an attempt to run straight through a block of stone is not recommended. So for my Australopithecine forebears and also for me, this is a lie, but a lifesaving lie. It is a white lie. Our commonsense world is built up out of white lies. Without them, we would not be here.

 

I show you a picture. I tell you how I did it: "I went to Ruritania, put Tri-X in my Nikon, exposed the picture at 1/500th and f:8 (but not the hot dog stand to the left, or the other beggar to the right), went home and souped the film in D-76, printed the neg on Vario RC paper while dodging the shadows a bit and burning in the sky in the upper left corner. I dried and spotted the print, and here it is." This is legitimate.

 

I show you another picture. "I went to Ruritania, set my Nikon to ISO 32,000, dunno what speed or f-stop, aimed the camera at the beggar (but not at the hot dog stand to the left, or the other beggar to the right), went home and put the thing through Lightroom, bent the curve a bit to save shadow detail but had to let the sky go to the dogs, printed it with an Epson XX-9000 on Hahnemuhle Ko-Ko Handlaid, and here it is." That too is legitimate.

 

In both cases I can understand roughly what options for fact-bending that were available to you, and maybe I have some cues as to your intentions and general morality.That is as far as we can get. We have been getting along with this even since the primeval campfire (long before it, in fact -- chimpanzees do lie). Campfire yarns, cave painting, alfresco painting in Sixtine ceilings, photography, it is all the same, morally. Don't make a fetish of a technical process -- or a bugaboo. All the shady areas are between our ears. And the ultimate deception, is self-deception.

 

The old man from the Age of 'Mundus Vult Decipi' -- still going on, it seems

[digbyhp]

Stanley is confusing the greater technical ability of digital photography to alter the 'reality' of the original photo with the amoral or immoral behaviour of photographers using that altered reality to serve their own narrow ambitions.

Many of his ethical observations may be accurate, but he goes too far in implying that the ease with which the digital camera and tools can aid the distortion of the photographical image may in fact encourage the unethical consequences. Wrong.

As pointed out by previous posts, the moral or immoral decision always lies with the human being. Prior to digital, there has been other examples of photo-journalistic distortion of images in order to achieve a desired artistic, commercial or political outcome. Frank Hurley's composite photographs from World War 1 come to mind.

Like many obsessive artists, Stanley's thought trains are criss-crossing logical tracks, perhaps unconsciously dissembling in order to self-justify his moral outlook.

[chrism]

Doesn't come down to intent? If you alter a photograph to make it more pleasing artistically I would call that valid and honest. If you alter the content to mislead the viewer I would have to call it something else.

 

Chris

[pico]

There will always be the argument that photographs are maniuplated - from the fact that the photographer chose the particular moment, then on to to issues of the highly re-rendered that we have seen since the beginning of the craft.

 

A photographer who chooses not to manipulate the image after the fact has made a poignant, and final statement. His work stands upon that.

 

No amount of philosophizing, rationalization can change what is in the final work.

[lars_bergquist]

There will always be the argument that photographs are maniuplated - from the fact that the photographer chose the particular moment, then on to to issues of the highly re-rendered that we have seen since the beginning of the craft.

 

A photographer who chooses not to manipulate the image after the fact has made a poignant, and final statement. His work stands upon that.

 

What do you mean by "manipulate"? Alter? No--this is a charged word. In the darkroom, even dodging and burning in is "altering" the negative. You do probably mean "alter with intention to deceive". But in that case, the moral stigma is in the intention, not in the mere physical act.

 

No amount of philosophizing, rationalization can change what is in the final work.

 

Don't think! Don't think, for chrissake! It's dangerous! You may lose that smooth feeling of certitude. And where would you be then?

 

The old man with the bad habit of thinking

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's just easier to cheat with digital. It's the sole difference i perceive but it may become important actually as PJ's codes of ethics are not legally enforceable generally.

BTW the SPJ code provides that "journalist should never distort the content of news photos or video" but "image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible" according to it.

 

Society of Professional Journalists: SPJ Code of Ethics

[dpattinson]

If newspapers really cared about authenticity, it shouldn't be too hard to have cameras made that are tamper proof and encrypt a copy of the images using a key that only the newspaper can decrypt.

 

I can't ever see this happening, because in reality they don't really care that much.

 

In any case, it seems very likely that in the near future the majority of news images (and quite probably commercial ones too) will be pulled from video stills anyway - and no-one is going to be shooting 35mm film for that

 

Journalistic ethics aside, there's a reason the 'airbrushing' is given that name in PS - it's because commercial photographers have been printing, airbrushing, bleaching and spotting, then re-lighting on an easel and re-shooting images for decades before digital came along. PS just makes it easier, and more viable within the time constraints of journalistic work.

[pop]

If newspapers really cared about authenticity, it shouldn't be too hard to have cameras made that are tamper proof and encrypt a copy of the images using a key that only the newspaper can decrypt..

 

The problem is not constrained to that part of the process chain. You can alter quite effectively the way some depicted part of reality is perceived by choosing your time, point of view, angle of view, lighting and any number of other parameters.

 

In many cases of intentional deception it was not the photographer but someone later in the process chain who wanted the viewer deceived.

 

If you want to make a study of it, choose any politician at random. Collect all images showing this politician across a reasonably wide spectrum of the press. You can clearly see that it takes no manipulation at all to alter the appearance of a person apart from selecting the shots which match your message the best.

[rob_x2004]

It's just easier to cheat with digital.

 

What difference does it make?

All you have to do is change the caption.

[dpattinson]

The problem is not constrained to that part of the process chain. You can alter quite effectively the way some depicted part of reality is perceived by choosing your time, point of view, angle of view, lighting and any number of other parameters.

 

In many cases of intentional deception it was not the photographer but someone later in the process chain who wanted the viewer deceived.

 

If you want to make a study of it, choose any politician at random. Collect all images showing this politician across a reasonably wide spectrum of the press. You can clearly see that it takes no manipulation at all to alter the appearance of a person apart from selecting the shots which match your message the best.

 

Sure, but none of those manipulations are in any way affected by whether the original image was shot on film or on digital - which was the thrust of the original post.

[zlatkob]

As pointed out by previous posts, the moral or immoral decision always lies with the human being.

 

I think you're right. He's blaming digital for the faults of the photographer. He thinks there is a moral code in film, but there isn't. It was alway in the photographer, or it wasn't.

 

And I'm not sure what to make about this comment about digital black & white:

 

"I think digital is great — for color. I don’t think it’s great for black and white. I think it’s just too much manipulation. It’s not real. There is this kind of grayness. I still don’t get the blacks I want without taking it to such an extreme that it becomes a cartoon of its former self."

 

What is he doing that would produce such bad black & whites from digital? Without knowing the specifics, it sounds as if he's making some basic mistakes.

[redbaron]

Or maybe he just has much higher standards.

[zlatkob]

Or maybe he just has much higher standards.

 

He regards digital b&w as "too much manipulation" and "not real". With film, one chose a b&w film and a developer formula. Those choices reflected an interpretation of what b&w should look like. Often, they reflected the choices of chemical engineers in Rochester, NY, i.e. at Kodak. But there were numerous b&w films and developer formulas and each would have its own look. They didn't give the same results and they weren't always interchangeable. Each had its tone curve, its response to certain colors, etc. One could even use the same developer to develop the film in different ways (different concentrations, temperatures and development times). All of those choices manipulate the image. And then there were numerous papers and paper developers. With so many ways to make a b&w image, I don't think we can say that one was "real" while the others weren't, or that ALL of them were "real". Instead, every b&w is an abstraction that reflects a series engineering and esthetic decisions in its production.

 

With digital, it is very much the same. One chooses the b&w formula that reflects ones interpretation of what b&w should look like. Digital doesn't inherently create lousy black & whites, as Greene suggests. It sounds as if he just hasn't yet found a formula that suits his esthetic. I don't think that's a fault of the process. Just because he hasn't found it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that others can't find it.

 

And look at the b&w photos accompanying the interview. They are amazing, artistic photojournalism. They certainly reflect the film esthetic. But I'm not convinced that the film esthetic is inherently superior to or more "real" than digital b&w.

[osscat]

I remember when there was a lot of looking down on the 35mm format - not proper photography - no doubt there were periods like that throughout the history of the medium.

 

I recently heard an interview with Chris Steele Perkins on BBC Newsnight publicising his latest exhibition based in darkest Yorkshire (lots of night pictures) - during that interview he said that if he was to start the project again he would do it digitally. The interviewer expressed surprise but Mr Steele Perkins was quite emphatic.

 

I have not altered my style of photography as a result of using a digital camera, rather I have worked hard to make it work for me as I did with film. Understanding its parameters is as essential as learning about the chemistry and how one uses it with particular films and lighting.

 

It is quite as difficult - for an old dog. However, I would love an M6 with a 28mm f2 lens and would even enjoy the alchemy of developing the negs but I would still scan and process by computer in warmth and comfort, unless, that is, I could afford to use one of the darkroom technicians who print for Magnum et al.

 

Osscat

[AlanG]

How could any black and white photograph be considered a true representation of something that is in color?

[redbaron]

How could any black and white photograph be considered a true representation of something that is in color?

 

Perhaps for some people black and white is reality.

[pgk]

Having thought about this thread I've realised that the imaging process being used merely imposes technical restraints on the images. It has, IMHO, nothing whatsoever to do with the integrity of the final image - this is a human imposition and whilst technology may 'simplify' distortion of the scene captured, it does not do it on its own.

 

Good article, flawed considerations.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[holmes]

Stanley is one of the great war photographers. He is based out of Paris. Photography is his life. There was an excellent article on him in LFI a year or two back. I read with the interest the defenders of the new faith "Digital". I remember taking photos in Vietnam with an Olympus Pen EE. B&W film of course. Had a local Vietnamese photo studio do the processing. Nothing classified or that would give aid and comfort to the enemy. One of the first shots was of a SF 10 ton truck who had run over an ARVN soldier. His head lay between the dual wheels. I shot a proud pap-san holding his baby at the entrance to his shop. One of my favorites from that time was of two young children. Obviously brother and sister at the communal well where they had just filled their cans and buckets. The smiles on the faces of those two kids would light up their house at night. Then there was an advertisement for a local garage " specialist in repair of oil and petrol machines". They were wide and varied, and all in black & white. I couldn't get fancy, I didn't want to. I photographed as I saw. That to me is photography. The use of color film adds a different dimension. It softens while B&W is hard depending on your subject.

[photogkellyrae]

photoshop has ruined peoples vision for photography.

Images are mostly hideous.