Hi everyone,
For the blog post this week, please respond to the two questions below. (And include a mention of which essays from the class readings this semester are informing your answers to the questions).
1) Do photographers of persons who are victims have a special (perhaps ethical) obligation to get out from behind the camera and become directly involved in promoting the comfort or safety of a victimized person whom they photograph?
2) Do photographers or their editors have an ethical responsibility to publicly inform viewers that a photo has been modified digitally or altered with Photoshop?
John Long in “Ethics In The Age Of Digital Photography” writes “Honest photographs can have an ethical dimension when it concerns the personal ethics of the photographer. Did the photographer violate some ethical standard in the process of making the picture?(671)” Long continues and writes about a photographer who was photographing a young child dying in Sudan. The photographer was attacked because he stood there with his camera instead of helping the dying child. Long writes that photographers should get out from behind the camera and help victims because they are in a position to help them. Similarly, James Nachtwey, in his essay “Ground Zero” explains on page 286 that if he were needed to help someone that he would have immediately put down his camera to help.
ReplyDeleteI think that there should be certain guidelines as to when a photographer or editor should need to publicly inform viewers that a photo has been modified digitally or altered with photoshop. Meaning, that if there are only mild touch ups, the photographer can choose to not inform the viewer. However, if the photo is going to be altered to the point that viewers are going to question whether or not it was altered, I think that photographers then have an ethical responsibility to publicly inform their viewers. If they do not, they are deceiving their viewers and leading them to believe false effects of an event or false images of a person’s body. Moreover, John Long writes in his essay “Ethics In The Age Of Digital Photography” that if the photo is a big deal and it can really damage a person’s reputation, there is an ethical responsibility to publicly inform viewers about the photograph.
1) I feel that when you are in a place where you know you can help, then you should help. In the essay "Ethics in the age of Digital Photography" by John Long, he states that if you have placed yourself in the position where you can help, then you are morally obligated to help. He said this because he was referring to the incident with the young child that was dieing in Sudan while a vulture was behind her. The photograph was taken by Kevin Carter and he was criticized for not helping the little girl when she was in the most vulnerable state. And in the end, the photographer committed suicide.
ReplyDelete2) I feel that editors should inform viewers that a photograph has been modified so then whoever views the altered photo will know what is real and what is fake. In the essay "Expanding the Language of Photographs" by Mitchell Stephens, he states that digitally manipulated photos must not be used for deceiving and they must be labeled clearly as what they are.
1) In the essay "Ground Zero" the author says that if he was needed, he would have helped, but since he was not needed so he took the opportunity to capture the tragic event through his photography. I think that photographers do have a special obligation to get out from behind the camera and help. Although they want to capture the moment through film, their true obligation is to help a person in need. If someone is at the right place at the right time, their instinct should first be to help those who need it, before they go running for their camera.
ReplyDelete2) In the essay "Ethics in the age of digital photography" by john Long it states, that one of the major problems photojournalists face these days, are that the public are losing faith in them, and they don't believe everything they see. Images are sometimes questions because its come to the public's attention, that because of computers, things are easily changeable. The public are losing faith, because they have to decide for themselves if what they see is the truth or if its an altered truth. Editors don't have the responsibility to keep the public notified about everything, but if they're concerned about them "losing faith", they'll have to be open and more informative about certain alterations and changes.
In the essay Ground Zero by James Nachtwey at first I was going to say that it was a good idea to stay behind the camera and take a picture to capture the moment for the people who weren't there themselves to see it and that it would be important to have pictures for the people to see what many victims went through that day. However, I went to go reread the essay and I stopped at the third paragraph of the essay and when Nachtwey starts to talk about seeing the people run from the towers and medical help being set up and he was still standing there with a camera saying it wasn't that bad. Also in the last sentence of that paragraph he had the people who were still in the tower whom were trapped and it didn't seem to phase him he just kept taking pictures, that to me is a problem.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the three comments ontop of mine they all seem to sum up everything. In the essays, people are mainly realizing the pictures they are looking at have the possibility of being fake and not the truth. There are times where both pictures should be shown just to ratify the truth behind the picture. However, I feel if the touch ups aren't extreme and bending the truth beyond it should be then there is no reason for both pictures to be posted.
1) In James Nachtwey's essay Ground Zero he says that if his help was needed he would give it. I think this is as much as we should expect of photographers. It was his job to document an important and tragic event. Clearly if someone's life is in danger he should be expected to put down the camera and do what he can to help. However, if a circumstance is beyond his control and he is forced to watch something tragic, then he should try to capture the moment as objectively as possible. So yes, I think photographers are obligated to help somebody in danger just as much as anybody else is.
ReplyDelete2)When a photo is intended to be a piece of art, then it doesn't really need to be labeled as edited because it will be assumed. But if a photo is going to be used in news publications and implied as accurate, then it should be labeled if it is edited. In Virginia Postrel's essay The Politics of the Retouched Headshot, Postrel talks about a picture taken of Sarah Palin that may have needed some touching up. I think the fact that it wasn't touched up is fine because it is used as a political photo. Surely a major political figure like Palin should be considered on her policies, and not her appearance.
Ground Zero by James Nachtwey is a perfect example of the unethical behavior of photogrophers and really people in generel. i think everyone is morlly responsible to help those in need. like the photographs titled "Retrospect" , i do belive is in important to capture a moment of history that could be otherwise lost. at the same time one picture could suffice and then help should be obtained. a human life is worth much more than a picture. September 11, is to this day, a day that will live in infamy. many people lost their lives in those towers and to have a photographer more concerned about getting the perfect shots than to save a life is not justifiable. however, at the same time i do not attempt to say that this matter is an easy one to discuss. both sides of the argument are very persuasive. if photographers would all help instead of taking pictures, history would be lacking in many interesting and vital things.
ReplyDelete2. i do believe it is the obligation of the photogropher and the magazine to have a small insignificant caption at the bottom of a photograph, saying it has been altered. it is not right to fool the public, as most consumers do, by giving them a false picture.
In my opinion, when one is in need of help then the photographer should put down his camera and provide help. However, when others such as doctors and cops are present for help then the photographer should continue his work. James Nachtway's "Ground Zero" illustrates his profession as a photographer and his willingness to help if it was needed. That is how a photographer should behave in such cases.
ReplyDelete2. If a photograph has been altered then the viewers should be informed that an alteration did take place. If this does not happen than as John Long stated in his essay "Ethics in the age of digital photography" that people are beginning to get confused on what they see is real or fake.
(1)It seems that whenever a photographer captures the moment instead of getting out from behind the lenses, he is scorned by viewers. People apparently would rather the artist do something to “help”, rather than commemorate for their benefit. And yet they never wonder if perhaps the artist felt he was needed more right where he was. Frank Fournier understands their point of view. He even says himself, “photography is not television…in a sense it can be more powerful” (595). People, he says, seem to remember pictures better than T.V. specials, so he felt that it was his job to be the one to take the photograph.
ReplyDelete(2)Yes, they should let the viewers know if it was altered because it is our right to know. It would be better to let us know and then be criticized, than to have us find out incidentally AND get mad AND criticize about the rudeness, sneakiness and idiotic-ness.
(YES)to #1 he should put it down if he feels its right, but the people shouldnt get mad at him. maybe other people were doing all that could be done
ReplyDelete1. I think that if a photographer is photographing someone who is in immediate danger they are ethically obligated to help them. In the case of Kevin Carter and the Sudanese girl from “Ethics in the Age of Digital Photography” by John Long he should have brought her somewhere where she could of received medical care or at the very least inside away from the vultures.
ReplyDelete2. I think that unless the picture is being used as something that is considered a reliable source of information, such as a text book or a credible newspaper, then it doesn’t really matter if the picture has been touched up or edited. I don’t see the big deal if “The Inquisitor” or “The Onion” wants to Photoshop a picture to make it look like Bigfoot is on someone’s freezer. I also think it is ridiculous that people complain when Obama is moved from the center of a photo to left of it, but then complain when a picture of Palin is unphotshoped. In reputable sources like textbooks and major newspapers where viewers are being told that this is exactly what’s happening there should be a small indicator that the picture has been altered if dramatically passed the point of minor touch ups. I would suggest just sticking a little DA in the bottom corner to stand for “Digitally Altered”.
Photographers have certain responsibilities, depending on each specific situation. When someone is in direct need of help, and they can benefit the situation, they are obliged to help. If they will just be in the way, than they can take pictures, as long as the subject in the pictures don't mind.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that altered photos NEED to be labeled. It almost defeats the purpose of altering it. Maybe if you don't inform the subjects in the picture, or get permission from the people in the picture, than you must label it "altered".
1)I believe that a photographer does have somewhat of an obligation to help in any situation, with some shades of gray obviously. John Long said that you would be morally obligated to help in such a situation. sometime helping a person can be more important than taking pictures.
ReplyDelete2) having editors state if a photo is altered would definitely be a good idea. most alterations are minor and have minimal impact on the photo anyway. It'll probably get to a point though where nobody can trust any kind of photographic evidence anymore. As long as the alterations are not too significant and don't pose a problem, though, it's fine.