"The photo depicts a plane taking off from Reagan National Airport, the 14th Street Bridge in the foreground and the orange glow of the setting sun in the background. The photo references the Air Florida jet that crashed into the bridge 30 years ago.
The caption included a note: “This image is a composite created by taking several photos and combining them with computer software to transcend the visual limitations of standard photography.”
That raised more questions for me than it answered, so Kenny Irby, Poynter’s photojournalism faculty, and I called Michel du Cille, director of photography for the Post.
The answer involves not Photoshop but HDR (high dynamic range) photography, which combines images with multiple exposures into a single image."
interesting; for me, "composite" brings to mind something completely different from "HDR processing." I prefer the original too, because the HDR looks like the colors are pushed into such an unreal range that they seem contrary to a news photo. The availability of tools and the ease of photo processing raise a lot of complicated new questions of journalistic integrity and ethics.
""But Sean Elliot, president of the National Press Photographers Association, said, “HDR is not appropriate for documentary photojournalism.” The organization’s code of ethics say photographers should respect the integrity of the digital moment, “and in that light an HDR photo is no different from any other digital manipulation.”""
Black and white film has a much greater dynamic range than a digital sensor. Is all b&w film photojournalism equally controversial?
The point I'm making is that the HDR issue is a non-issue as long as it is addressed (as it has been) in the caption. I don't see any place in photojournalism for combining images with different content though.
@dmortega "The photograph was several pictures taken in different years..."
I don't think so. Neither the article nor the caption in the paper suggest that this is the case. Mind you, if more than one frame has been combined then the plane would have moved between frames. And that makes it a composite.
@dmortega - thanks - what a lazy reader I am - I agree then to "composite" as an appropriate description and it sets my little mind spinning ever faster :)
@reba :) I'm just playing devil's advocate. I love discussions that really get into the nitty gritty of what photography is. I would respectfully disagree with the NPPA guy quoted above in that photography already involves the compression of dynamic range from what the eye can see to what the camera can see to what can be viewed on screen to what can be viewed in a print. HDR just extends this spectrum, I don't have a problem with that. I get though, that he is drawing the line at maintaining the 'integrity of the digital moment' i.e. as soon as you combine frames you are combining different content (planes move, birds move, clouds move etc.), but then again what's the difference between that and a long exposure?
@dieter - yes this IS fascinating - i, for god knows what reason, have always been drawn to questions of journalistic integrity (blame high school journalism and my most inspirational teacher I guess) and since I started this project, i've had to begin to think about photojournalism as well. Some times that one hurts my brain. I don't make find any necessary distinction between what the camera can see vs. what the eye can see (i.e. - the technology of the camera doesn't trouble me), and I think I'm probably OK with HDR but I'd want it to be pretty much from photos taken as close to the same moment as is physically possible. I wouldn't want to see a composite in reporting without knowing that's what I'm looking at and preferably seeing all the separate pieces. I guess I'm increasingly troubled by the fact that you can't believe what you see - and I'm sure that includes having been too naive on that point in the past. From another perspective, I'm a casual student of Buddhism and the more I learn there, the more I'm coming to appreciate that my analytical, rational mind's former belief in an objective reality is much more shaky than I realized. Sigh . . .
@reba yes, I'm drawn to questions of journalistic integrity as well. When it comes to photojournalism, imho the focus should be entirely on questions of the truth or otherwise of the image and how it is being presented (it should be in context, unstaged and so on, with nothing added or removed). When it comes to the supposed 'manipulation' of tones and colour I hold the firm opinion that such things are not only allowable within reason but impossible to avoid (and I do mean impossible, most especially with film). In the last SOOC challenge thread I raised the issue, half in jest, of whether images taken using in-camera apps such as Hipstamatic could be considered SOOC. What I didn't realise then is that the New York Times is happy to consider them photojournalism! (and I agree 100% with their assessment in that case).
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I think Sean said it well.
The point I'm making is that the HDR issue is a non-issue as long as it is addressed (as it has been) in the caption. I don't see any place in photojournalism for combining images with different content though.
I don't think so. Neither the article nor the caption in the paper suggest that this is the case. Mind you, if more than one frame has been combined then the plane would have moved between frames. And that makes it a composite.
oh NO - there's no hope for sorting this out