There’s always been photo manipulation. It is just that with film, it was often a long and laborious process and frequently difficult to disguise.

Today, retouching digital images – and film photos once they have been digitized – is almost child’s play with a bit of experience in programs like Photoshop.

So, can we believe what we see? The camera may never lie but the computer-operator certainly can.

Sriyantha Walpola, a former World Press Photo seminar attendee from Sri Lanka, asks just how much photo manipulation is permissible and are there any leading publications which ban it altogether?

The answer is provided by Per Folkver, picture editor-in-chief of the Danish newspaper Politiken.

In Photoshop - today’s darkroom – the options for image editing are virtually unlimited. It has become easier to alter the original appearance of the digital image and to move elements around. The cleverest can do it without it being noticed, and the less clever get fired.

At my newspaper we often discuss where to draw the line. Our basic rule is simple - because it is easy to grasp: It is forbidden to remove or to add any element in one’s picture.

We are not the only ones enforcing this rule. Many media outlets around the world also adhere to it. Because, although a photograph does not represent the naked truth – a photo is always a subjective statement – the rule makes sense, as it guarantees some degree of authenticity and credibility.

We can then say: “You can interpret the photograph however you wish, but we can guarantee that the event depicted by the photographer actually took place”.

If photojournalism and documentary photography are to survive as means of telling stories, credibility is vital. Because just about all of the remaining photographic genres are subject to almost unlimited manipulation. One could even be tempted to add that much of modern photography is merely an advanced way of lying.

But how much image treatment can then be considered acceptable? I think that a good rule of thumb is that you can do the equivalent to what can be done in the analogue darkroom. However, the boundaries are blurred, and there are both ethical and aesthetic considerations.

There is no content without form. Nevertheless, it is paramount that the form supplements and supports the photo’s content. Excessive burning resulting, for instance, in a person nearly disappearing in the dark may cause the viewer to misinterpret the photo. On the other hand, emphasizing certain elements in the photo may enhance the story inherent in the picture.

Many photographs undergo far too much image editing in Photoshop. Sometimes I wish that photographers would get hold of an analogue camera, put a slide film in, and shoot some pictures. That would remind them of the essence of light and of the necessity of shadows.

Link:

Politiken