'Once you've taken a picture, you removed it from reality'. Brilliant words! I've discovered Ted years ago, and now that I'm following a Photography major, I find myself remembering specific videos and coming back to them regularly. He's always having insightful ideas about such a broad topics and I'm learning so much! Thank you, Ted!

Quite often, like today I find myself clicking the thumbs up before the video has finished.

A great question to raise and discuss, thank you Ted. I think it is more a matter of intent than technique. With a camera we can "lie" simply by how we frame a scene, in the same way that a journalist can "lie" via selective quoting out of context. I think what these questions reveal is the expectation the public have that a photograph represents "truth". When you live through some newsworthy event, don't you find sometimes that the images that come from that event on the TV news, or in print, emphasise the drama? It's what holds interest and therefore sells copy / ratings. In that sense I think photojournalists are looking to capture the essence of the story in much the same way that illustrators did. The difference is one of the reader / viewer's perception (misconception) that photographs don't lie or mislead.

It always surprises me when I hear about photo journalists altering their images. Especially that they ARE going to be fired as soon as somebody finds out anything more than crop / global adjustments / curves / levels was used. And ALWAYS somebody will notice eventually. As for the second image, he removed the camera from the left bottom corner and replaced it with rocks. Which for sure allowed the picture to tell the story better, but it's using one of the tools that is strictly forbidden when it comes to photo journalism. Had he cropped the image to exclude that camera in the bottom left corner, probably he would still have his job. Probably the image wouldn't be as good in terms of composition. I remember being curious about how anybody was even able to notice that any change has been made. It was rather well done, so I suspect there had to be somebody who knew about this alteration and had some reason to get this photographer down. Another case of a photographer ruining his career was the guy who won Wildlife Photographer of the Year few years ago with a great photo of a wolf jumping some fence in Spain. Really good image, I learned a few things from that (despite not shooting wildlife). But, as it transpired, the image was staged using a tamed wolf. The guy lost his prize (I think 10k GBP or so), but he also ruined his credibility and a career as a wildlife photographer. The photo was good, but certainly not worth taking such a risk. The photo of the boy sleeping between the graves was staged. And the caption was a lie added by some newspaper. I remember seeing that image when I didn't know it was staged and it was a very strong image with a strong emotional message. I felt angry when I have learned it is a lie. Which says that I actually expected an image published in a newspaper to be truthful. As it transpires, the photographer took it as part of his art project. But general lack of noticeable retouching makes it look like photo journalism... It is also what makes it such a strong image. If he were to add some heavy retouching, say, a gritty texture on top, it would be obvious it's not a news story. The image would be of the "meh" variety to me. There is another aspect of photo journalism which affects the amount of post processing possible. I'm talking about time. Many of these images have to be sent to the publishers almost instantly or within few hours after they were taken. If I'm commissioned to shoot a fashion show, which happens from time to time, I shoot the show in the evening and the images (usually 50-100 of them) have to be in the editor's mailbox on the morning the next day. This means there is no time for sophisticated retouching (and no need for it as well). So pretty much all I can do is selecting the sharpest frames, WB correction, exposure correction if needed (especially if the light changes during the show), contrast / levels / curves adjustment and crop / level. And this is basically it when it comes to what is acceptable in photo journalism of any kind. Luckily, since it's a story related to fashion, I can do some quick and dirty local adjustments (dodge and burn). Still, there is no chance for doing anything that would require more than 2-3 minutes and most of the global adjustments have to be done semi-automatically. I feel that when it comes to photojournalism, such standards (as in global adjustments and local dust removal only) in regards to retouching are necessary. The thing is that photo and the caption below is what often tells the whole story to the reader. Members of the public trust the image to be an accurate depiction of an event and most of them do not even realize that an image, even coming straight out of the camera, is already not an accurate depiction of the subject, but the photographer's interpretation of the subject. They do realize that the whole write up or an article the image was used to illustrate, is somebody's opinion on the subject. But in general consciousness. a photo IS the truth. It is completely different when it comes to commercial and advertising photography. Everybody expects it's been retouched in one or another way. And obviously, if I spend several hours retouching photo of model, it is not to show what she really looks like, but to ensure she looks beautiful. The models are chosen for their physical beauty, ability to pose and, if you're lucky to work with a good model, their ability to show emotions, to act. But each image is a lie from the beginning to the end. There is the lie in makeup / hair treatment, there is a lie in placing the lights and there is a lie in retouching. A lie perhaps is too strong, I think it's better to call it "creating an alternate reality" in this case. Still, what surprises me, many people choose to believe in truthfulness of the image. Every now and then I stumble upon some fashion or beauty photo on the web, with many angry comments below criticizing the fact it's been retouched, all of them coming from people who have no idea about the inner workings of the advertising industry, naively believing it should depict the truth. And getting angry at others who understand that advertising is created to sell the product, not to deter the potential buyers :) To finish my long (way too long) comment, there is a huge group of people dabbling in photography who tend to get pretty toxic when it comes to discussing the subject of retouching and photo manipulation. Usually using silly arguments, such as, "the only true photography is what comes out straight of the camera" or "true photography ended with the days of shooting on film, when images were not altered afterwards". After showing such people on several occasions how photographs were altered back in the film days, I just gave up participating in such discussions whatsoever as even showing samples of images with photographer's notes for the retoucher on them doesn't seem to be convincing enough...

I still can believe you're content is free. You are the best "professor" I've been listening in my life. Can't express enough how much I / We appreciate your effort in making these amazing videos. Thank you.

Ted, as a former journalist, current ASMP member and creator of my own art photography, I see a clear line between what is acceptable and what is not in photojournalism. News publications are held to a high standard by the public, and they expect to see, read or hear content that at least is not deliberately manipulated. Many reporters and news outlets have been faulted for rephrasing or even inventing quotes, failure to check facts or plagiarizing material. Personally, I never felt better about my stories than when I was put through the ringer by the magazine's fact-checkers and I always taped my interviews to ensure the accuracy of the quotes. The Economist image was clearly over the line. Deleting people who were there is not acceptable. Even the minor cloning out of the rocks in the other image should not have been done. We all know that RAW images need attention to sharpness, tone, and perhaps noise, and that is OK. The gray area is really in something like cropping, which can change an image - but so can the reporter's choice of quotes and inclusion or exclusion of relevant facts. Deliberate manipulation of facts - in a photograph, video or text - is not appropriate, at least to this admittedly old-school journalist.

You can't say it much better than Henri Cartier Bresson: "We photographers, in the course of taking pictures, inevitably make a judgment on what we see, and that implies a great responsibility." Wether we mislead by framing or by software is irrelevant.

I have no idea what the problem is in the second picture. Yes, he made the rocks look somewhat more appealing in his eyes. Are the rocks the subject of the picture? Did the changing of the rocks somehow alter the core message of the image? No it didn't. Firing a guy for that is ludicrous.

This was a great video. Representation is such an interesting topic in all media and it's a lot of fun to teach. It's clear that you enjoy it immensely 🙂 It shows. If you ever visit South Africa, please get in touch.

Really enjoy your commentary and videos Ted, keep it up. As a writer, I am regularly encouraged to intentionally blur the lines between truth and beauty to illicit an emotional response from my readers. Journalists and creative writers use their words to interpret and communicate a situation, and photographer's should be free to do the same. The pen is my tool, the camera theirs and the truth is that words are beautiful and photography is no different. Beauty is always present in the truth and the two can't be separated.

I'm fascinated as ever with the topic you surfaced everytime. This time it's no exception and this leaves a sea of debate about what truth and reality do to affect art in general and photography undoubtedly has evolved into a form to see it as a form of art to express an artist's point of view. Now this is questionable that what you would consider art and what you won't. Oftentimes beautification hurts reality and to some people this exaggeration in turn hurts art itself. I think when we see something, for example, that absolutely make our minds melt, our eyes try to make the most to keep the beauty hold forever and when we find a medium to convey the message we had perceived by whole of the beholding subject that lingered on in our memories, we express that in the best way we can and this expression makes art. If you do exaggerate, the truth gets hurt and that too attraction to the audience and this is where lies the problem of creating real art. I personally believe that surrealistic approach to make an untruth a truth hurts art as a whole. But you aren't in the bizarre span of time that you must forget what is currently taken easy to impact on the minds of the audience and to some extent you have to be run on the mill to get impacted what you want to convey and you saway from that school of thought you have to bear the burnt. When you survive the ordeal of telling your story telling technique way differently with real substance in your material you have created art and that is an era recognised by some other education that hasn't been prevailed at the time of creating the art and your success which is now playing a wanting role will then be loved as a recognised art at a different time. You may sometimes put your stamp in whatever you do artistically but by then you're bound by rules that doesn't believe in what you make but that what you give instantly is most important and you have to make it with your hands tied. Still there's people who don't only earn but they make something out of their work and that is worth the effort that money can't buy.

It all comes down to ones own profession, whether you are a journalist whose job is to try to depict the scene as truthful as it was, or you are an artist whose job is to create a piece of art whereby actuality is no longer important.

Hi Ted, I've been binge watching your videos for last few days. Excellent work, finally I found someone who's not so focused on gear and technicalities behind photography. you have really interesting and thought provoking videos.

For me, it's a matter of balance. When it comes to serious photo journalism, I need to depict the truth and tell a story but in a eye catching way. The Economist and many other publications number one priority is to sell their magazines. Sadly photographic accuracy comes second to a dramatical front cover which will push magazine sales, especially in a digital age where time is everything. I think it's very sad that the photographer who lost their job for a fairly routine (for a backlit image) and subtle manipulation gets punished. If He/She really is that good, then they can make it on their own without the snobbish doctrines of old traditionalists in photography who clearly lack any balance when it comes to subtle photographic editing. Education to image making is key here. I cannot count how many times I've seen people say on an image of a sunset they took with their phone 'no filter'. As you know, all digital camera censors have filters to process an image. I will argue, the very same people will be sat behind an editing desk for Economist magazine making judgement calls on how severely a photo should be manipulated. As long as the photographer has integrity, good principles in photography and an honest approach to displaying an image, then the question of beauty or truth lands firmly on the editors.

I am currently in a Contemporary Photography Class, and I intend to share your video with my classmates. Your video is very well done. Thank you.

Ted, I know I'm late on adding this but I was just watching this and here's my two cents worth. The manipulation begins before we ever pick up the camera. When we envision the shot, decide on exposure, decide one what to include or leave out. Matthew Brady, Ansel Adams, and Cartier-Bresson may never used a clone tool, but each made significant choices about what they created. Even the decision on when to release the shutter was in effect a manipulation of the photo. Enough said. Thank you.

Hey Ted, I really enjoy watching your show. It's amazing to see how something developes over time and keeps getting better and better. The level of education in your videos is outstanding. Keep up your good work! Greetings from Hamburg, Germany.

Interesting video and discussion The Art of Photography Ted Forbes If I watch the news on TV, I want to know what happened in the world. I don't want to hear the opinion of the reporter, I want to be able to create my own opinion. Unfortunately, that's almost never the case. For photography, photo journalism that is, I want the same. Making a picture better so it can be "consumed" better is OK as long as the story is not manipulated. The purpose of those images is to tell the story, mostly to illustrate the story printed next to it. Changing this kind of images can change news into propaganda... If it's about art the rules change. As a photographer (not journalist) I can change whatever I want in the picture to tell MY story, feelings, whatever. I must admit, as a Street Photographer I'm moving around in the gray-zone I guess... A painter is already changing the image by preparing his canvas...

It's all about the application. Few people look at the cover images of Vanity Fair or Vogue and accept it as truth. For journalistic applications of photography, only global adjustments should be tolerated as those images exist solely to tell the truth. Art images like the one you shared in your previous video, I think anything goes. I frequent various galleries throughout NYC, and I rarely find an image that hasn't been enhanced or altered in some way.

The technology that goes into making a photograph is so complex that the layman has to trust that the photograph is an accurate depiction of the event. Education is the problem here, if all the processes that are undertaken before a photograph (or any media) is published were understood by the layman then they would always ask themselves ; Does the publication have an agenda here?; Why has the photographer composed the photo like this? and What is the point of view being shown? before accepting that the photograph is true. "There are no facts, only interpretations" - MrMatthewEx. Honestly I was the first person to coin that phrase.

I am very grateful you opened this discussion because I've been wondering where that line is and the ethics of post production. When you first mentioned 'the moment you take the image, it stops being real,' I started to protest. Then, I recalled several recent incidents where an edited clip was used to advance a political agenda, only to find out later the clip was grossly out of context. A picture is only from a certain point of view. Just like a witness, the picture can only show a limited perspective of an event. Pictures are also limited because they are two dimensional -- there is no sound, smell, or other sensory input to convey the whole meaning. Email is also two dimensional, and we all know recipients who added, assumed, or expected connotations and emotion that simply was not present in the email. People can similarly "read" into photos emotion or a message that isn't there or unintended by the photographer. Unfortunately, I don't think we will be any more successful in educating the public at large to the limitations of photography as a medium than we are in educating them about the limitations of email. In one sense, I can't help but think we are cheating when we compare our dehazed, color-corrected (enhanced?), re-balanced, and corrected photos to those of a great photographer like Edward Steichen. He had to get everything right at the point when he took the photo, manually controlling every aspect of the image. Isn't that kind of like allowing athletes on steroids to compete with those who are clean? Does that mean we have to act like Luddites, refusing to accept any technology developed after some arbitrary point in time? If art has intrinsic value, whether as entertainment or education or culture, why not exploit every technical advantage available to improve the experience and work? My own weak attempts at answering are limited to the idea we need to be up front about the differences. Like golfers, we're being given a handicap. That is fine as long as everybody knows. If we compare Steichen's photo of men praying on a bombed out carrier during World War II to a modern image of Marines praying before entering Fallujah, we should be honest about how advanced technology helped the modern photographer. I think the location of the "line" is heavily influenced by the purpose of the photograph. Nobody questions an artist like Salvador Dali or Pablo Picasso "manipulating" clocks sliding off of tables or bombs falling from the sky to convey the deeper message of their artwork. Photographs presented as news is another matter. Recent cases of the media staging events for dramatic effect (CNN), heavily editing audio tapes (NBC), or using special effects (NBC Dateline) are beyond misleading. The fake imagery is propaganda presented as objective journalism. I have an expectation (however forlorn) of objectivity from journalists. At the very least, they should be up front with their audience about how they edited or manipulated the imagery. Thanks again for the discussion. I hope we can further explore this topic.

Very interesting! Indeed, the more you think about it, the hard it is to draw a line as to where reality is being manipulated by whatever process is used to store it. In the case of the first image, a similar effect could have been obtained just by using a longer lens or by moving a few steps on the side: from this statement, I think that one could argue both ways on the truthfulness of the manipulation.

If the photographer of the first image had stepped a bit more to the left, and composed the photo so as to produce the photo in camera, would there have been a similar outcry? There is no truth, everything that goes through a human being is subjective. An image is not reality. But neither is a human brain's perception of photons striking a retina. People SEE differently, whether it's an impressionist oil painting, a 50 megapixel raw digital file taken with an optically perfect lens or an oversaturated HDR image that is clone stamped to death. A news image can't be objective, even the simple question of what is required to be included in the image, or what can be omitted. Someone must decide, and there is no objective criteria for what must be included/excluded to be a full truthful representation of reality. My thought is that we ought to stop thinking of news/photojournalism as objective truth, but rather it's someone's perception of the world. Brilliant episode. Thanks Ted.

As the person Ted mentions by name in the video (working at the University of North Texas - UNT), I should post a disclaimer: Some of my photographic work has been used in an editorial context in the past by UNT but none for the last couple of years, when we have been trying to get more student involvement in these things. Anything I write here is my own view and not that of my employer or anyone else. Now, with that out of the way... The primary and overriding principle in my photographic approach is not to destroy the original intent of the image at all, and to TRY to keep it all as intact as possible, whatever else I do to it! Like Ted, when I shoot film (which is more and more these days), and I scan my images into the "Digital Darkroom" I also remove spots of dust or scratches to the emulsion that I didn't at first see that might otherwise destroy or detract from the composition of, or from the overarching message of the image. I mostly use the spot healing and clone tools in Photoshop for this, with a perhaps a layer. Very basic "correcting" of processing faults is my intent. Is this any different from what I'd do (did, as it's been a few years now since I last worked in a 'real' darkroom) with a "real" silver print? No. In fact, photographers did that kind of thing almost since day one. The issues here are about how society reacts to these changes and about how unfair and biased those reactions are. Who should decide if a change is "valid" or not? Where are the boundaries? What if you step over a boundary? Can we re-draw those boundaries? What do we do about work that was previously "bad" and with a re-drawn boundary, is now "good"? It's much more complex than just shooting a picture, isn't it?

I feel that we as photographers (and human beings) make choices when taking images. The same is true for the (word) choices of a writer. While I do understand why people may think that photography is truth I am still dumbfounded by the fact that photos do not seem to have a similar status as paintings. They are, after all, just A representation of truth. Especially now that we're well into the 21st century people should be well aware of the issues of photoshopped. A photo of a sunset for example is no more (and no less) truthful than someone describing it with words. The issue of minor and major alterations is also rather peculiar as it presupposes what a photo is supposed to look like. As an example one could go back to HDR photography. When we are at our sunset we can perceive both the sky and the earth. Yet, if we merge two exposures people tend to look that the photograph looks fake because that is not what single exposures look like. Now if the dynamic range of cameras keeps increasing that is what single exposures could look like one day. Moreover, even composition is opinion as it drives us to see just a snippet of a scene and to assume what the subject is. Not incidentally, I believe, photography is used to draw our attention to subjects that were not part of the public discourse before the picture was taken. In the end, public discourse and its ethics seem to determine what is 'truthful' and 'acceptable.' However, I'm far from accepting public discourse as THE truth.

Loved this discussion! This goes through my mind every time I sit down to edit.

Great show, Ted. I enjoy these types of episodes where we all have think a little bit. I think this topic parallels the age old question of "What is art? I know it when I see it".

Wow you posted this ten years ago. I was researching about modernism and beauty in photography and this popped up. I haven’t listened to you in while. This is fascinating and I wonder if you have delved into this topic again now that AI is here! I will have to look.

The man with the gun is looking into a camera. (You had forgot to mention that in the video Ted Forbes. Just saying') That is what the photographer edited out. Obviously that makes us think a little differently about what the man with the assault rifle is doing. I remember reading this on Petapixel (I think it was Petapixel). Great video as always Ted! Love the shows especially the One Photo Deep Dives and the History Shows/Book Critiques.

i totally agree with Ted's opinion. it's hard to draw a line between art and reality, on one hand, on the other, you have the so-called sub-genres of photography. photography, like other arts (literature, music et alia), developed it's own categories (architecture, photo-journalistic, medical, nature, advertising - etc) so, one solution to avoid sensitive cases like accusations of manipulations and misleadings would be to always place one style of photography into the sub-genre that it belongs to. maybe this question is one of the oldest since the apparition of art (in the sense of what is real-reality and what is fabricated-reality), but at least in the case of photo-journalism the ethics are clear because what has the most priority is the accuracy of the facts (every human being has his own definition on reality but what is of extreme urgency in this case of photo journalism should be the utilitarianist side of reality). in the sense that utilitarianism maximizes utility of reality and bases perceptions on facts and pragmatism.

An ever-fascinating topic, I enjoyed watching! I have two comments on the photograph of the man with the gun. 1. Removing the videocamera from the scene changes the status of the depicted location ever so slightly. The videocamera shows that they were not "on the move" but stationary at fixed position; the photographer could afford to leave his videocamera laying around. 2 (more importantly) In the hypothetical situation that two photographers would take a similar shot, this altered image could be preferred by an editor. Enhancing or tidying a photograph, even if the general message of the image is not affected (open for debate on this specific example), is unfair to the colleagues that try to work pure. I would believe in working in raw with a watermark.

For me personally, I take a photo and don't edit it in any way. I may change the EV value, but if so, I usually do so when I take the photo. However, sometimes I take a photo where I have the black and white image in my head before I take the shutter. Then I convert to black and white. If a post or a fence wire or a telegraph cable is in the way, then so be it. Then I look for a different point of view, if that doesn't work, then I take the photo as it is. Others erase elements that (could) have a negative effect in the photo. Today, I think you could use a "blank" photo and select objects and backgrounds to generate an image that couldn't be captured photographically. For me, this approach is more classified as art. I hope that in the future there will still be a place for photography that photographs what the photographer actually saw, I would like it. Maybe because I grew up in a time when these options, such as AI for example, didn't even exist yet? We are all children of our time and if we respect each other, there is certainly enough space for both, at least I hope

IMO photography will never be able to reveal absolute truth of a moment in time since there are no 360 wide angle lenses that can include the whole scene in the first place. Is framing considered as manipulation of truth if for example instead of photoshoping out the two people next to obama the photographer chooses to move one step right and take em out of the frame before taking the shot?? And why is that different?? It's the same result. Truth manipulation can be considered changing from a 14mm ultra wide angle lens into a 50mm telephoto lens and vice versa depending on the scene. You can include all the people in a group shot with a wide angle lens and exclude some with a telephoto lens. You can use a wide angle lens into a small appartment and fool people that the apartment is spacey etc... Food for thought

As a complete newbie to this artform, plus I don't even have a camera yet (not even on my cellphone) but your videos are incredible and informative! I'll be sure to do my studies :) That Henry Peach Robinson photo at 6:52 is one of the most coolest photographs I've ever seen!

Very Fascinating conversation! I feel that way when instagramming!

If you manipulate a photo it becomes art, not news.

Journalists should always submit their unprocessed images. No exceptions. It's not art in the usual sense - it's supposed to document reality. If the publisher wants to alter them after submission, then that's their decision, right or wrong. If we want to get *really* pedantic, journalist photographers shouldn't even shoot in JPEG, because the internal circuitry of the camera tweaks those images in-camera. I know the technical reasons why they shoot JPEG in the field, but if we're going to split hairs, that's the reality of it. Every image they submit is already altered. This entire debate will be irrelevant soon, because nobody wants to pay us anymore. A free crappy iPhone pic trumps a quality pic they must pay for, almost every time. See BetaMax VS. VHS for an historical example of people having no grasp of quality. McDonald's is another fine example.

I generally think simple is good. In general too much thinking messes us up, so simple is good for me. Photojournalism the goal I would think is truth so just let the picture tell the story period. Do not mess with it. When it comes to attempting to create an object of beautiful art, just photoshop until your heart is content. And I would add disclose if you photoshoped the hell out of the photo. Experienced photographers probably can tell but the general public may not and they I believe have the right and can benefit from knowing the extent of photoshoping a photo. I personally appreciate beauty right out of the camera without a whole lot of photoshoping going on. I believe the beauty already exists before I come along and take a photo of it. I am just able to see it and click the button sort of speak. Hopefully I know my camera well enough I know what settings to use and I think in the end that comes with practice until I do not have to think too much about it.

I think, for the lack of a better word 'problem' lies with the viewer. We place too much truth into the image since seeing is believing. We believe what we see through our eyes, but what we fail to grasp is that looking at an photo, we are looking through the eyes of another person. Every single photograph has a filter applied to it, a filter that cannot be removed. That filter is the human understanding of a situation. Your understanding of the situation influences you into your composition, framing, exposure, and moment to capture. But with that understanding we have already manipulated the image, the message, the truth. It now becomes your view of the truth, and not necessarily THE truth. We as the viewer of the image must realise that if we want to find out the full truth, we need to be there ourselves, gather our own opinion, and make up our own truth about the truth. Having said that, being a photographer especially when you are a photo journalist gives you immense power, and with that immense responsibility. Do drastic photo manipulation of models in beauty magazines have a positive effect on others, especially impressionable minds? Does a dramatic composition of a war zone for journalistic news help you convey the truth, or your version of the truth? It is a discussion with no definitive answer, but I do think we need to understand that any photograph is us looking at something through someone else's eyes, with all the possible truth or imagination that it might include.

Great analysis, really teaches photography with class and ethics

I think where the answer to this question starts is in the expectations of the audience. For photojournalism, this is a representation of reality. Art, not so much. The "minimal" manipulation you describe, isn't defined by the producer, but by the consumer of the work. Possibly when a producer uses this phrase they are (without articulating it) placing themselves in the shoes of the consumer, hence the difficulty of a precise specification. If you are subverting these expectations, that's where the problems start.

Rather appropriate timing given the recent Brian Williams scandal who claimed to have been reporting from an army helicopter that took fire while he was "onboard". Personally though, I don't have a problem making such distinctions. I think there should be certain ethical standards for photographers in news media for all the reasons you mentioned. What I can't stand is when I watch photo critiques on these youtube shows like PhotoRec Toby, or The Grid on Scott Kelby's channel, or Tony Northrup (not so much with Tony he usually concentrates primarily on composition), when it is obvious the photographer has altered the image and have actually done a pretty good job at it, it is nonetheless inevitable that the person critiquing the photo will call them out on it when obviously the photographer made a conscious aesthetic choice and there is little reason to assume that that is the part of the photo the photographer is looking for criticism on. Furthermore, there is also no reason to apply standards that apply only to a narrow field of photography, i.e. photojournalism (which I think includes wedding and event photography, family portraiture, etc.). A lot of people seem incapable or lack confidence in identifying a piece that is intended as fine art or where aesthetics is the organizing principle as opposed to representing the "truth".

In summary, - context defines what's acceptable, - exposure, shadows/highlights, white balance, sharpening, contrast even with tone curves are acceptable IMO, - a respect for the photographers' skills may be the cause for stricter post-processing rules, and - fashion industry is well beyond the ethical limits and causes huge damage. Many discussed that art has no limits and photojournalism should be as truthful as it can be. The latter roots in, I think, the respect for the photographer's skills. If she/he can capture the moment according to his artistic vision right at the scene, than it should be acknowledged. Correcting things later is like covering mistakes. (Don't get me wrong, I firmly beleive in the freedom of artistic expression, this is just food for thought.) The context, e.g. if a picture is presented in an art magazine or a newspaper, defines mental framing for the readers. If a photo is altered yet the viewer thinks it was not because it is a newspaper, than that's a "moral fraud". There is one more important aspect: the fashion industry. There are demigods on every picture, yet the models have a BMI of 17, they often have a coffee for breakfast and an orange for dinner, and they are just ghosts of their pictures (in my personal experience). Obviously not all models starve and suffer, especially not male models, but I am sure you get my point. Girls and boys grow up seeing the false demigods (no pun intended) every day, and many won't realize ever that not even the models could have had that appearance. Fashion industry propels and maintains the biggest picture alteration campaign of history and that causes huge social, psychological damage.

I would say motive and intent within the context of what it is. In terms of image quality, levels and curves etc, broadly-speaking, yes; for me, cloning etc, no. Composition, yes. Exposure, yes. A subject that is properly, ethically "documentary" and intended to be so should allow the viewer to see a snapshot of what the photographer's eye saw - not as an artistic opportunity, but as document, even with its composition skills...In all things where the thing is not clearly somewhat artistically interpreted to capture an element of the perception and intelligence/"closure"/prägnanz associated with our soul's processing of the scene, then it should tend to best reproduce what the eye saw, albeit with knowledge that here is the frame of a lens, and the viewer wise to that "framing"..I just enjoyed your HDR video and agree..that's a good example. Take a landscape; it should be what it is unless a choice is made to transcribe and capture some essence of the real that the camera couldn't relay along with the breadth of everything the eye and mind might ably perceive in one view, e.g. a blurred waterfall connoting some continuity of motion and passage of time etc. But that is to capture an essence that we can relate to and translate from reality, without the immediacy of experiencing the thing first hand. But if I open all the shadows and hold the highlights in a way which disallows our visual intelligence the opportunity to note highlights and pass, peer into shadows in the anticipation of dynamic range increasing to satisfy curiosity/perception - even if the information isn't there to supply "closure" to that process - then I've taken the image away from beauty and truth...These are some of my thoughts. :)

Great topic and discussion. Personally I'm comfortable viewing a news image that has been edited for light and shade or tonality, but not cloning. As you point out though, the in-camera crop and especially the choice of images from a series potentially have a far greater impact on how the story is perceived. Impartiality is virtually impossible, and even if the photographer can truthfully say 'these images are how I perceived the events' we know that only the most dramatic will be published.

Hi Ted, superb Video as always. As far as I am concerned, I don' t believe in the " truthfulness" of any picture I see on the cover of any magazine. There are to many possible ways of manipulating an image nowadays. It was only just today that I saw a guideline on how to fix some unwanted facial expressions on some family shots by just removing the head via software and put in a wanted and more pleasing expression on the childs face in question from another shot. And this is on amateur level. There surely are some more possibilities in the profi league. One ( and I include myself ) could think, that a camera placed in front of a guy ( lower left corner ) that could - or could not - be a " soldier / fighter / rebel " in an angle that gives the owner of that camera a " beautiful and dramatic " shot could be placed there for a purpose. Who can tell if that was a " real " scene or if it was made up so the guy who owns the camera can bring a picture home ? I wouldn' t bet on that. I have no idea if it was fair to remove the guys' pictures and sac him, but maybe they wanted to get rid of him anyway and were just looking for a good way to do it ? No idea, but when it comes down to the news business, I don' t trust any Photo I didn' t shoot myself. Ok, enough conspiracy theorie for now, keep on the great work, I very much appreciate it ! Klaus

I can understand how both decisions might have occurred and can agree with both of them. There is a fine distinction between truth and fact; facts are true, but not all truths are fact. The Economist is an editorial. The cover photo, while altered didn't change the truth of the image. The war photo was offered as fact, altering the image did not change the truth of it, but it did change the facts of it, so it could no longer be offered as fact. A fine distinction to keep in mind, both with photography and politics.

There is no photo that tells the reality. It is only the photographer's interpretation of the moment. It is like you waiting for the best shot, while things are happening one after another. One photo does not tell the truth about "that moment". PS: the last photo is hilarious!

What's amazing is that we tend to think of news media as being safe from humanity's obsession with perfecting aesthetics, especially when the subject is human. Matthew Brady got caught moving bodies around for aftermath Civil War scenes, apparently the clone tool was not quite up to par yet. When Brady shot portraits later in his carrier, he had artists on payroll to clean up prints with ink and brushes etc. to get rid of simple stray hairs or even reduce wrinkles (human Photoshop). In this way both studio and news photography haven't changed. The standard seems to be that image manipulation is okay as long as we approved the lie. If we feel we are the ones being lied to, then it's a problem.

I'd like to know what style of glasses frames you are wearing in this video. Great video with an interesting point of view. Thanks

Reminds me on the discussion of the World Press Photo 2012: petapixel.com/2013/05/14/forensics-expert-claims-world-press-photo-winner-a-fake-photographer-responds/. Quite interesting that there's a kind of forensic investigations possible (at the end of the article). However, when it comes to Journalism or Social Documentary, we should not accept any manipulation of the content itself, neither in post processing nor in things leaving out of the composition to change the content or meaning. When it comes to Art, everything should be allowed, but I would prefer a statement by the Artist if he manipulated the photo (if not directly recognizable). And like always, great show and very interesting content :-) What I really love, you leave somehow always enough space in our mind to create our own thoughts and opinions. Very different to lot of other channels where they try to sell us always the one and only truth ;-)

Social media is important and as you said with platforms like instagram, it's not so much as a platform for photography and art but rather popularity and social users who converted from facebook. There are some great photographers, social or serious wise on instagram but they are hard to find. What has developed are other platforms like Flickr, 500px and EyeEm that help to bring these photographers together and interact in a way that they would not be able

It is interesting to observe, how that same problem of trustworthiness of a particular capture of a world at a particular circumstance cuts across all the media types. While this AOP episode contemplates the photography incarnation of the question, no less issues are in other media, like "fiction" movies ( firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/13/why-hollywoods-war-stories-need-to-be-true/ ) and "opinion" materials (just search for the "Serial" podcast controversy). While in the past the news agencies had the implicit authority to claim truthfulness of the materials they distributed, they have also violated consumers' trust enough to create social confusion. Trusting specific material is a reflection on a person's history and mental state. Such interaction for one person may be "I believe it, no matter what naysayers say", or "How dare they violate my trust", or "Whatever, nobody can be trusted", or any of many other possibilities. To a certain degree such reaction may be steered by better setting specific expectations for a piece being an "art", or a "documentary", or an "opinion". The reality however may be that an individual's perception of trust and truth and violation of those is out of hands of any news organization or artist. It is a largely a personal matter of a consumer. Not completely, but largely. It has alway been that way. So, what changed which caused a perceived up-tick of frustrations around representing "reality"? I think a couple things happened recently so that those issue gained prominence. Internet introduced an accessible channel for the consumer feedback, which those who feel violated are quick to use. Note, that that feedback will naturally amplify negative feedback - simply because it is less likely to have as much people say "Oh, thank you, the photo you published 3 years ago did not have any issues discovered" than "How dare you violate my imagined standard of journalism". IMHO that is the major reason why we see those issues blown out of proportion. Producing and greatly manipulating multi-media materials has gotten much cheaper in the past twenty or so years. Producing something and getting social pats on the back gets even more troublesome when people go for "cool" factor - which is now very accessible and cheap. Like Ted mentioned in the video, HDR technique used to be a special skill in the darkroom, now it is a $39 Photomatix Essentials purchase away. What used to be a toolbox of hard to use techniques, is now sold as a packaged software, like $29.99 Pixelmator. And yes, a mere availability of a tool increases chances of it being used - because the object "demands" attention. As an illustration, if a group of boys walk past a soccer ball on a road they are very likely to kick it. Check out Kurt Lewin's Field Theory at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_theory_(psychology) . With more use of those tools, we will see more media manipulation - forever or until society manages to work media manipulation boundaries into it's ethics code. As far as working out that ethics code - it is unlikely to work out specifically for photography. Exactly because what is done, how communities react, and how many economic interests involved is so much all over the map, it looks like there is no where to settle yet. Which makes it even more important to ask those questions, like Ted did, so that patterns can come out of attempted answers. One of the most powerful ways to set expectations for a media is to put it in a context of it's use, i.e. implicitly categorise it as a documentary or anything else. A front page of "The Economist", in my perception, should hold to documentary standards, unless a prominent cartoon. Same image manipulated for Obama's reelection campaign would be "m-e-e-h, marketing". But notice, we are out of just photography media - as plenty of perceived violation comes from the words on that front page. Exactly because the original image message can be read as "Obama with..." instead of manipulated into "Obama vs..." If Narciso Contreras's image would be accompanied by words making use of photoshopped effect that edition would draw more peers' ire. The way it is, it is AP preserving their reputation of "we will only give unadulterated materials". It is a PR. And an allowed corporate response to their perceived reputation danger..

It's interesting that with the economist photo, the photog might've got the same shot as the cover if they turned right, shot it at a longer focal length. however, this speaks to the photographic vision and "seeing an image" when you're out there in the field

I do a lot of portrait photography. Wondering what you all think of this discussion in that context.

Very thought provoking topic. I think that photojournalists do have a responsibility to make an accurate representation of what they see. Beyond the basic exposure adjustments, should we consider any more than this to this to be a visual "typo" or a deliberate mis-statement?

The most beautiful, poignant photographs manage to find beauty within "truth." For further reading, I would recommend World Press Photo's report entitled "The Integrity of the Image." In this year's World Press Photo competition it was estimated that twenty percent of images that made it to the second-to-last round of judging were eliminated because content within the image was modified in post-production. The problem is what constitutes a “minor” versus “excessive” change is largely open to interpretation, and there is an enormous grey area of overlap between the two.

I think the first image from the Economist was indeed a questionable choice and blatant alterations of the scene to manufacture a situation you want to create out of thin air vs a little touch up work like in the second image. Interestingly enough back in the film days the second image probably would have received less heat because it would have been the magazine's own in house photo lab guys doing it and they would have been supported by the full weight of the publication. Now that photographers do all the post production themselves with digital it also leaves them open to being thrown under the bus because they are expendable. Also I agree with you that the written portion of these publications are not held to the same standard. That being said editorials are not news. It is opinion about news. That being said most publications deliberately misrepresent that fact too so I guess it is a wash all around. My guess on what happened with the second photographer is this. I would be interested to check headlines at the same time for other questionable photographs or even plagiarism cases around the same time. It more then one incident came out at around that time he might have been made and example of regardless of the severity of the infraction and like I said earlier. He would have been an expendable fall guy in such a case.

This is a great topic for debate. My take is that what really matters is intent. In cropping the image, or using post production techniques, why are you doing it? Do you want to convey a concept that wasn't there? At some stage, you will find yourself on the wrong side of a very blurry line, and you'll have to ask yourself whether you are there for the right reasons. And plenty of people will disagree with you.

The picture shown from the Revolutionary war needs some clarification. First, it did not come from the period of the war but in the years leading up to the war 1770. Also, it was not hand drawn, it was a carving made by Paul Revere for printmaking.

Those weren't rocks that he cloned out in the lower left of the Syrian soldier picture. It was his video camera. I guess he felt that the camera was distracting, so he felt the necessity to remove it.

In my humble opinion, a photograph is, by definition, (like Ted said) a "lie", since the camera abstracts a frame from the space-time continuum. The photographer is also , by all means, his own person , he has feelings towards what he photographs and wants to depict something as he sees it. By no means should that be ignored. That said, photojournalism in my opinion should be as truthful and unbiased as possible, especially when dealing with a delicate subject like war. Otherwise it shouldn't be called journalism in the first place, just as people who massively photoshop their pictures shouldn't be called photographers but graphic designers. It's not me being elitist in any way as a person who calls himself a photographer, it's a matter of self respect and respect to photography as well. That gets us to the subject of post production: where do we draw the line. My view on that has changed over the years. I myself only use film. Why i do that is not important. What is important, is that photography TO ME is so interesting because what you see in a photograph ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Again, that is it's charm to me personally. Thus, i deliberately try to get a moving and well framed image in camera, rather than making even minor tweeks on my scanned negatives. That makes ME feel much better and more proud of the final result since it's much more real and the photograph is to a much greater degree the result of my personal effort to frame and expose correctly rather than post production manipulation. As photographers i think we must always be conscious of how beautiful the real world (yeah, the one out there) is, and that should we put the effort into it, we don't have the need to rely on post production for more than really minute adjustments. All the raw material is out there, and i consider it the utmost challenge for a photographer to combine it to make something trully masterful and moving, should it be landscpae photography, portraiture, street photography, photojournalism, ANYTHING. That's what personally drives me to become better at photography, not being beter at photoshop and i think there's something to be said about that. Sorry for the long post

Texture to the rock ...? .... he removed a VideoCamera ...

Top video as usual, great work, thanks Ted! I guess it is precisely due to the technical advancement of photography and the very easy editing available to all that makes alterations a difficult thing. Where do you draw the line? What is benign editing and what is falsificiation? I have no idea how to define those categories. It is a pity though when a good photographer is pushed by the competititon to make a basically useless alteration to a photograph just to be able to better sell the picture.

I didn't read all the comments so I apologize if this was already covered. I also watched the video twice to make sure I didn't mishear or miss anything. I remembered this incident because I was surprised (but happy) about how strict the AP (and other news outlets) were about conveying the real scene - it made me trust what they were showing me. The second picture, the one by Narciso Contreras, was altered. He didn't "use the clone tool to put some texture back in to the rocks." He used the clone tool to remove another photojournalist's camera from the shot - huge difference. From AP's release on the subject: "The news service said Wednesday that Narciso Contreras recently told its editors that he manipulated a digital picture of a Syrian rebel fighter taken last September, using software to remove a colleague's video camera from the lower left corner of the frame. " www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2014/AP-severs-ties-with-photographer-who-altered-work Also, the tonal and colour adjustments would have *likely* been fine, from AP's code of ethics for photojournalists: "Minor adjustments in Photoshop are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction (analogous to the burning and dodging previously used in darkroom processing of images) and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable" www.csus.edu/indiv/g/goffs/135%20photojournalism/Associated%20Press%20ethics%20code.pdf I assume the code of ethics haven't changed. Narciso Contreras knew AP's code of ethics, knew he broke them. I don't think his career should have been destroyed. I do think he has only himself to blame if other news agencies won't work with him over the incident, even if it was only the one time he did it. I'd be curious if this changes your view on it, no pun intended :)

FWIW Contreras did not "bring back texture in the rocks", if you look closely you will see that he removed a camera from the image. That does not justify the punishment he received but I wanted to clarify this. I believe we need to sit down and talk about this, and not just agencies or magazines, but photographers and the people who will be the recipient of these publications, we as readers need to have a say in what we feel is cheating.

The third example was the most difficult to judge. A photographer chooses a moment of time or a point of view to take a picture to stress his own opinion on the subject. The picture hasn't undergo any manipulations, but does it represent the reality honestly?

this touches on very frustrating issue with photography we have today absolutely agree on the fact the the very act of taking a photograph is already a manipulation that alters the very fabric of reality, now the question is where is the line between altered and non altered image? as the very core of today's technology relies on the digital processing of the light information that's being collected, turned into the digital signature which is already artifact than depending on the camera / software it goes into further processing and lets say new technology will offer cameras that will automatically remove unwanted subjects or automatically adjust contrast areas from the scene will that be a genuine photography ? In the case of the award winning photographer who lost his job over simple aesthetic manipulation to me its more of an attempt to set example for other photographers to not follow that route than a logical action its simply unethical to punish incredible story teller in such shallow manner and what about the very image editing and processing software the reputable magazines rely on are these always calibrated to "reality" ? The very act of taking a photo is an act of altering the reality so everything that it comes with it is manipulation there is no such thing as "authentic photograph" we are trying to protect reputation not the reality here.

A famous portrait photographer was commissioned to photograph an aged dowager. When the client said, " I hope you can do me justice", the photographer resorted, "Madam, you require not justice, but mercy".

Isn't this 'the' discussion in the age of digital media! Photo journalism depicting reality should not be altered beyond simple light, dark, contrast etc. I am not a photo journalist, I make pretty pictures. I do not feel bound by any constraints on reality anymore than a painter would feel a responsibility to be realist. My goal is to make things people want to hang on their walls. In this age of instant information and a diet of hyper sensationalism in the news, I think there is a clear delineation that needs to be strictly obeyed by journalists - no intent to confuse or misportray!

Hi, interesting topic. Comments: 1. It seems that editors/publishers can do what they want to make a front page 'image', as you said they are not photographers they are 'graphic artists'. 2. Obama vs BP, the image shown 'could' have been taken on the beach, all elements were there at the same time, if the photographer was in a different spot with longer lens he possibly could have cropped out the other people and captured an image as shown on the cover - the truth remained the same. 3. Fighter in Syria, edits did not change the main subject so should not have made any difference to the truth of the story. Did the photographer crouch down and ask the fighter to run up and jump - was the shot 'set-up' - we would never know... This is from a typical enthusiast photographer, I don't see a problem. However as mentioned below, perhaps the photojournalists should submit an unaltered image with their edits, for pure truth. The edited image is then used if the publisher feels it is appropriate or does their own editing.

@Ted Forbes I think what a lot of photographer's do is let their personal opinions affect the photo. Now I am not saying that I'm not susceptible to this l. I wish some would try to remain open in any given situation and try and show "truth"? (Not sure if that's the right word)

I think this is not the photograph that is subject to the ethics dilemma. An image is an image. It was pointed out here that if the first image was simply framed differently, it wouldn't have to be manipulated for the same effect. The problem is in the way a story is told, and the photograph is just an illustration to the story. In fact, the same photograph, or drawing, or whatever, can be used to illustrate completely different or even opposite views. Just like one facial expression in a movie sequence can be interpreted differently depending on the context. People choose images depending on the story they want to convey. Sometimes an image can be taken as is, sometimes it can be manipulated - even just cropped, and sometimes it is created for the story - just like the third image, apparently. The difference is only in what the particular publication wants to achieve. The Economist has its bias and the articles are basicaly editorials. They are stories crafted to match that bias or agenda and the images are selected accordingly. It is read by people who agree with that bias and an outrage about a cropped image can be dismissed as "so what? it's an illustration for the story". The title and the text of the article are crafted exactly the same way. AP, on the other hand, tries to maintain a certain image. They strive to be unbiased and trustworthy and therefore need to show the truth. They have to trust their photographers, be sure that they are delivering an unbiased view. If they allow the image to be manipulated, even without changing its context, how can they be sure that another photograph is not manipulated to remove something that does change the context? And going further, how can they trust the photographer not to manipulate the context by specific framing or even directing the scene, like with the third photo shown? To sum up, Photographers are subject to the ethical code of their employers, not a separate one. Glamour, product, commercial shots are expected to be heavily manipulated to perfect the image. Same goes for editorials, to various extent. And photographers doing documentary work, or working for news agencies may be required t show the truth, not beauty.

Hm, as a linguist (and, actually a hater of formal semantics) I would say that an alternation to a photo is too big when in a different world, in which all other things are equal to our universe. this alternation, had it taken place at the shooting, would lead to a difference in the future course of events. What do I mean by this? Examples: 1) removing dust from a photo is not a significant alternation. in Universe A you remove the dust, in Universe B, you dont. Both universes are still going to be very similar. Wether you do it in post-production or not. 2) in Universe A you have a real orphan, in Universe B you just pay a kid to sleep between two graves. In A, the child has a totally different future and life, in B, the life of the fake orphan is different than the life of the real one. Ergo, a significant difference. The universes may develop completely differently (one of the kids becoming the next president of the US).

Very good report and debate

So moral of the story is that you can be sued/fired just for using Lightroom or Photoshop lol even if it's removing a telephone wire post or something in a landscape. Then what's the point of Lightroom and Photoshop if we can't use them for publishing our work?

Consider also two famous images....The Kiss & Flag raising over Iwo Jima. Both have been proven to be less than truthful or authentic.

Somewhat unrelated but related... I used to have a job that required photographing houses. Some clients required a signed statement that the photos had not been altered in any way. If they were altered and I submitted them as unaltered I would no longer be eligible for job assignments, as in fired. I assume photojournalist have to sign contracts with their employers and clients.

A little late to the conversation, but I would like to weigh in. My feeling is that the photographer is obligated to meet his clients requirements. Present the original photo along with several edits. Be transparent. Leave it to the client to decide what to use.

We already manipulated by our own eyes and brain, we're not seeing the world as it is but seeing by our own way, our feeling, and experience. For the first shot would it be acceptable if the photographer move closer to Obama and take pictures of him without others appear in the frame?, for the second image IMHO removing the camera and replace it with rocks doesn't change the message of the image, yes it's manipulating if you say so but what if he cropped in the picture? Being objective is not possible in this world, we always have a feeling to express it to other ppl and somewhat somehow make us a little bias to things we belive in.

i do agree with you. But not with all said. And i have the intention to add a few lines especially why some getting upset. The journalist has to deliver the truth because that is his promise to us or his readers. Written or shot in a photo doesn't matter to me. "When you have something to say, speak the truth or at least don't lie" isn't from me that quote, but accurate in meaning as it should or has to be. When we have to judge about what somebody had said or had done then we are in need that we can rely on, a context that shows us what has been happened. So the truth and no photoshopped B.S.!!! As a journalist you have to ask yourself: What do i want from my readers? Help? Love? Force against? Do i want to inform them about what and why so? You will not get that with a manipulated image or falsely written text. In my opinion, a photo is evidence of circumstances - good bad, or otherwise - and my intention to show to the subject what has happened is my job. And the context gives the viewer a base for meaning. What? Anybody how sees an image becomes the image. He can get shaken up! He can become sad! Or happy. Stay in the shadow of truth she keeps you safe from getting burnt.

I think that photography it's delivering a truthful message with a not so truthful story. The boy sleeping in the graves of his parents may not be real, but the message is the same: "this needs to stop". So, to me, reality it's not definitive which makes photography not other thing that a messenger of interpretation. It doesn't matter how much we alter a scene, the truth it's the idea that an image conveys, not the image itself. ( sorry for my English it's not my firs lenguaje)

Ted, in the second image was a camera removed not just some stone texture brought back!

I just read an article on PetaPixel about Peter Lik...What is your views regarding his photos, pricing and comment about Ansel? Would love to see a video related to this :)

Ethics is a huge topic... I agree that documentary photography requires standards... I believe that manipulation of the scene, removal of elements, and adding false layers is ethically wrong and should be penalised... However the use of perspective, angle of view, field of view, depth of field and deliberacy of exposure are perfectly acceptable for the photographic artist/journalist to transmit the message and mood of the "subjective reality"... Colour grading or deliberate manipulation of saturation, hue and dynamic range are in my mind perfectly acceptable...

Hey Ted, I'm a big fan of your show and I'm sorry this has nothing to do with this episode but . . . Could you please do a show on Frank Hurley. He has long been my favorite photographer but seems to be largely forgotten. He was the photographer of the ill fated Endurance Expedition (1914-1917) and is credited with some of the only color prints of the first world war. If Vivian Maier (no offense) deserves a show certainly Frank Hurley does. Please keep the show alive. FILM forever!

Definitely a very interesting issue and a difficult one to treat on line. However let me give you my first thought when i watched your video; it took me to an exhibition I saw a few years ago of a very good and known photographer; Steve McCurry. I really do love most of his portraits! But there is one that changed my “image” of him. A boy holding a pistol to his head. I really hate that pictures, from the very first second I faced it, I felt that he has crossed, by far, the line! I felt sick and hungry at the same time (I felt quite confused for that emotion!) Of course, I might be wrong but that photo is what I do call MANIPULATION! If so, my apologies to the author!

To be honest that image on the Economist is fine by me. Because Obama WAS standing there in thought or discussing something, and that WAS him and the background. - If only it were shot from another angle and those people weren't there it would've pretty much been that picture anyway. - The edit isn't that extreme that it's shocking or that you'd feel cheated. - Also, I find that it pretty much works like putting a catchy title on something, in the same way you form an image to represent what the content of the magazine or book or movie is about. - That one picture doesn't matter, in my opinion. - Now, if they were to alter all the pictures inside as well, that's a much bigger problem. - But who complains, apart from that it's fictional, about an edited together movie cover or poster... Same thing, it's the front cover of a product. - And yes, sure, it's photojournalism and that should be about reality, but in terms of the media (as in an image on their product), they've just Photoshopped a nice cover to put on the stands. - I don't see a big problem with that.

I think any photograph that is visually manipulated should be tagged as such, so that the public knows that wht they are seeing is not completely true. This include photojournalism as well as aesthetic and commercial photography

I appreciate your thoughts regarding holding photographers to different standards than the news media. Personally, I have no problem with “minor” post production photo changes such as those made to the rocks in one of your examples. Where I do have a problem is when significant changes are made - like the picture of Obama - to reinforce a predefined narrative. News media has an integrity problem and photography shouldn’t be part of the arsenal used to indoctrinate the viewer.

Hi ted, love the video but i was wondering in the second image, has he not removed what looks like a gun in the bottom left and not just adding some texture to the rocks if so i think for a picture of war removing a weapon out of the picture could definitely alter the image

The line must be drawn at what message you want to convey with your photographs. Do you want to show the beauty of the photograph or do you want to depict the reality of what was going on? The photographer (in the case of photojournalism) has an ethical responsibility to depict what he sees and not what he wishes he saw. That said, I don't feel like the rock brightening thing altered the original photograph's meaning...

Great video and insight

interesting discussion...educational learning experience...thanks!

I think that photojournalism should represent the truth, but we have to keep in mind that even truth is in the eye of a beholder. if there had been 5 photographers in that area taking pics from 5 different angles, we would have seen 5 very different truths... Every aspect of a picture is a manipulation of the truth, down to its very core. when we choose where to stand and face the camera, we are choosing to ignore everything else behind you. when you compose your picture you are choosing whatyou want to be seen in your picture. Which lens you use also affects your field of view, which affects the "truth". What about depth of field? isn't that manipulating the truth? not to mention everything else Like contrast, color correcting, sharpening etc. in the first picture, he could have achieved a very similar image had he used a longer lens (or zoomed in) and stepped a little to the right. What it be manipulating the truth had he done that? if removing two people from the image using cropping after the fact, would it somehow be okay if he did it in camera using composition/lens adjustments (moving around/zooming) on the second picture, he could have zoomed in and recomposed his shot to get the camera out of the frame. Same question stands, would moving around and zooming in magically have made it more "truthful" than editing the camera out? If he wanted the camera out of his framehe could have moved or zoomed in, but wouldn't that be "lying" as well? I think the line doesn't get drawn on whether or not a photo was manipulated but rather if the image is representative of the scene as seen through the eyes of the person/people there. Without getting political, even the stories of the people there would be completely different coming from the ally or the enemy (in cases of war). So who's story is the truth? Going back to photos, let's imagine two photographers were there art the oil spill, it is very possible for one photographer to capture his image as the unedited original image showing the 3 people and for the second shooter (standing in a different position) to have gotten the edited and cropped image showing him alone. Which image is the truth then? Again, the truth is representative of the story being told. there are no facts in a photograph because every from the moment you decide to take a photo is manipulating the truth. I think it is reasonable to edit up to the point where it is still depicting the scene . For example if I take 10 pictures of a beggar in New York city and in my last pic of the ten, the moment I take the picture a pigeon flies by in between and 1/4 of my left frame is now occupied by a white and gray blurry blob. Is that a wasted picture? Do I now only have 9 images to show? or do I crop the image to remove the pigeon? isn't omitting the picture as a whole manipulating the truth, add the viewer will never know that a pigeon was there a part of the scene. Lastly, I don't think that the editors of a magazine should be able to make edits or alterations, as usually they are not the ones art the scene. The photographers were there and could better paint a picture and should not give that power to a suit behind a desk.

As you said, as soon as you take an image it is only a representation. News orgs get to make their own rules. I don't like what happened in the Economist example, the Syria example seems unfair to the photographer. If the ap feels that strongly photographers should just submit their raw images. I consider my own work to be "historical fiction" unless otherwise noted.

It’s not rocket science. Photojournalism should be as accurate as possible. Changing the detail in the rocks of the fighter image didn’t change the truth in the intent of the photo. For artistic work, photographers should have free range. It’s knowing which type you’re looking at that should be evident to the viewer to accurately asses what is being looked at.

Ask Brian Williams

Photographer Narciso Contreras manipulated that photo of a Syrian rebel by using the clone tool in Photoshop in order to remove a fellow reporter's camera out of the picture, before sending it to an AP photo desk. This is significantly more than simply "adding texture to the rocks in the foreground."

no image manipulation if you work for a media. it could be misleading. How objective media are is yet another issue. I used to shoot news and strongly believe journalists have to be a 100 % objective.