I don't remember the details of the Time/OJ debacle, but I can tell you from personal experience that when a face goes too dark in print, for whatever reason, there are always those around who are quick to call you a racist. After the first time it happened to me (pre-Photoshop days) I made sure my photographers gave me photos that would show detail in the darker areas, no matter how bad the contrast looked. When we started using Photoshop, I learned how to do it myself (lighten when necessary). My point is there is nothing new about adjusting the brightness and contrast of a photo to make it print properly, and nothing morally objectionable about it. If, on the other hand, Time went the OTHER WAY to intentionally make OJ's face darker, that is an abomination. Was it ever proved that it was intentional?

Dave, we discussed this in a previous blog -- glad you got the opportunity to present your case at the conference. But I thought the previous blog dealt with photojournalism, in which altered photos equal lying, plain and simple, unless it's just minor dodging, burning or spotting as we've always done. Today, you've brought advertising into the discussion, and I think all bets are off in that arena. Let "caveat emptor" rule consumers because advertisers have been lying to us with photos and art as long as there has been advertising.

Will

Here's the Time cover. It looked MUCH darker on the screen at the conference, and it was juxtaposed with a more natural shot done by Newsweek.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19940627,00.html

As for advertising, yes I do acknowledge a line between it and photojournalism. But even in advertising, I think we should all be aware of WHY we're doctoring photographs--such as removing a scar from an executive's face in a house ad--and we should have a bias toward as-little-unreality-as-possible, for the sake of the credibility of all photographs and of all public media. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

Don't make me come over there.

(Thanks, by the way, for the DoD policy you sent me some months ago; I read part of it at the session.)

Ahhhh... the house ad. I forgot about those. Yup -- I agree with you.

By the way, here's how the story goes about that DoD reg coming into being. Some brain-dead military public affairs guy doctored a photo on the cover of an Army magazine. As I heard it, the cover shot was an Army convoy, but one of the vehicles had a burned out headlight, which would have made that vehicle illegal to operate under Army rules. So the soldier-editor cloned one headlight and placed the cloned image over the burned out headlight. Sounds logical right? Nope. The road was wet and showed the reflection of only one headlight. Nobody noticed it until it got to a three-star general in the Pentagon, who said "Whatdafuk?" or words to that effect.

Will

Jaded public that I am, I have come to expect doctoring in photographs, especially publicity and advertising shots. I admire anyone who allows his scars, warts, AGE, and other features to be seen in their full glory.

As for humanity, remember when Gerald Ford tripped? Who knew the president was human?

Yes, this cynicism is spreading, and I guess what I don't understand is why people who say they love photography aren't freaking the hell out.

What, exactly, will photographs be worth to us as a civilization when every picture of every person has 20 pounds shaved off?

With the exception of truly artistic photography, we like photos because they are real. When we're convinced they are no longer real, why will we bother to look at them?

David,

I'm doing some final surfing prior to packing up and heading to the New Orleans airport. Two minor corrections: you actually appeared to be in control most of the session (I did get in a little late, so maybe I missed a rant or two).

When you blurted out the "My God, I am angry" statement, I thought it was refreshingly honest. Way to get in touch with those feelings.

The other small correction is that the scar on the executive's face was (and is) on his nose, not his forehead. You probably are remembering how I was leading the chant to "put back the Harry Potter scar."

Good job on a session that was not my first choice at that time, but that proved to bring out emotion in me, as well.

Thanks, Tom. That's reassuring to hear. In my rage, I'm surprised the scar location is the only thing I got wrong.

Great. After reading this, I'm angry now.

I'm absolutely shocked that this is even an issue that needs to be debated at a conference. Was this right after the session titled "The World: Flat vs. Round?"

If you change the meaning of a photo, it's a lie. If you remove an executive's scar, it's a lie. If you darken O.J. for dramatic effect, it's a dramatic lie.

Unbelievable.

Great. After reading this, I'm angry now.

I'm absolutely shocked that this is even an issue that needs to be debated at a conference. Was this right after the session titled "The World: Flat vs. Round?"

If you change the meaning of a photo, it's a lie. If you remove an executive's scar, it's a lie. If you darken O.J. for dramatic effect, it's a dramatic lie.

Unbelievable.

Great. After reading this, I'm angry now.

I'm absolutely shocked that this is even an issue that needs to be debated at a conference. Was this right after the session titled "The World: Flat vs. Round?"

If you change the meaning of a photo, it's a lie. If you remove an executive's scar, it's a lie. If you darken O.J. for dramatic effect, it's a dramatic lie.

Unbelievable.

David,

So Mr. Photos-Should-Be-Unbiased-and-Pure got a widdle carried away in the session, did he? And the audience loved the raw emotional personal point of view you showed-as opposed to an academic, documentary style delivery of your message? Sounds like an analogy between an untouched photojournalistic image and a kicked-up photo illustration to me. And it also sounds like the photo illustration style proved to be a better communication tool.

Try this on for size: If David Murray was a photograph instead of a person, would he be a simple documentary image? No, because David Murray is richer than he first appears in color and saturation and his tonal range is, eh, unreal according to session attendees. You may talk the photojournalism talk Murray, but your walk is photoshopped to the nines.

Hello from Pune, India where my travels so far have been punctuated by monsoon rains and mouth numbingly hot food. Oh, and a few photos along the way. Missed you guys. Thanks for carrying on so brilliantly without me.

Chuck: You are my brotha from anotha motha.

Salvo: A good photographer could capture me in all my raw emotional personal glory. Granted, it hasn't happened yet .....

Coincidentally, a news site (the BBC?) ran a story about the huge number of Iranians getting plastic surgery, including whole families. People aren't just adjusting photos; they are "rewriting" themselves.

Somewhere I've got a blog post about the need to control that, to me, seems to underlie plastic surgery and possibly even photo doctoring.

Let's have it, Diane.

Damn - I'm just angry that I couldn't be there to witness David Murray in all his full righteously indignant glory!

This sounds like it was a terrific panel discussion with real, honest...you know...communication! Hey, what a concept.

Rage on David!

I hear David Murray photoshops pictures of himself so he doesn't look so much like "Opie" from the Andy Griffith TV show.

You ought to try it yourself, Holland!

Diane, comparing people "rewriting" themselves to photo alteration is interesting. I don't know why, but the first thing I thought of when I saw that was sex reassignment surgery. Will someone please "Photoshop" David as a woman?

Will

David--

That whirring sound you hear is your photographic cheese being moved.

Photographers more than anyone would like it to go back to the way it was. Despite what anyone says, film was a simpler world and we didn't have to stay up all night in our hotel rooms posting images (which I'm guessing Suzanne is doing right about now).

But the toothpaste is out of the tube and has left the building, As digital imaging evolves we will adapt to it the same way audiences adapted to painters being displaced by the early photographers. Part of the anger you felt (and I percieved it to be authentic) is because you are sensitive to the traditions of photography.

I think those traditions are in the midst of being re-writien. New audiences will be more accepting of manipulated images because their baseline expectation is that all images are manipulated. The challenge for communicators will be how to deal with this in an ethical and truthful manner. I hope that message was clear to everyone during our session in New Orleans.

I could go on....but I really just wanted say how fun it was to have you on the panel. I was hoping you would throw a chair and make IABC history. I enjoyed meeting you and would jump at the chance to be on another panel with you. Maybe we should start working on Suzanne now :-)

Keith Philpott

Keith:

"The challenge for communicators will be how to deal with this in an ethical and truthful manner."

There's the rub, Keith.

I'd be happy to appear on a panel again on this topic, because I think this photography question is about much more than traditions of photography; it's about the larger question of traditions of journalism and honest storytelling and WHY we're fixing up all these photographs.

Let's keep talking,

David

As was the case with so many of the names I wanted to see this go-round, their sessions never lined up with my interest or comm discipline. And so, sadly, I missed yours, David, as well as Shel's, Steve Crescenzo's, Ned Lundquist's, Michael Zimet's and Marc Wright's). And that was unfortunate for many reasons, but one of them being that the session I was in, "Best Practice Communications Departments" with a panel led by Lee Hornick, was so general and vague as to be less valuable than the one-on-one conversation I had with my seat-mate, Stacy Wilson. She and I eventually walked out to continue our conversation and get something out of the time. I wish we'd strolled to your session!

I'm also sorry I never connected with you and Tom for that drink at the bar and the chance to talk too much with ya!

Lots of the sessions at the conference blew, Michael.

If ours blew, at least it blew HARD!

Sorry Tom and I missed you; oh, the times we had.

I don't know David, have never met him, but I don't think all this stems from his being "sensitive to the traditions of photography."

I think it stems from his feeling the rising, often nameless panic we all feel at times--at least I HOPE we do--when we realize how much bullshit, deception, prettification, manipulation, and outright lying surrounds us in our work and private lives--

--and how much of that bullshit, deception, prettification, manipulation, and outright lying we ourselves participate in more often than we'd like, usually--but not always--without even thinking about it.

"New audiences will be more accepting of manipulated images because their baseline expectation is that all images are manipulated." Exactly. And that should scare the hell out of all of us.

In fact, I think we do more than EXPECT illusion. I think we have an insatiable HUNGER for illusion. And that should be a terrifying thought to even non-communicators.

Thus endeth the sermon.

I looked for you Michael! Murray and Crescenzo can attest that I did make good on my promise to buy a round. We'll have that talk one of these days.

This bother me too. I've noticed that with orthodontia, medication for acne, etc. all teenage girls are starting to look exactly the same. Now, I'm 40, but I never knew a girl who colored her hair intentionally in high school (except green or pink, which was all the rage in 1985), nor did I know any mother in her right mind that would take her daughter before prom to have her hair done, apparently a regular event nowadays.

It's just downright disturbing. My friend from Honduras thinks we're all crazy. In her country, aging and wrinkles are a sign of beauty...they respect the elders to such a degree that they see them as the beautiful ones. I may look into moving there...

>>...nor did I know any mother in her right mind that would take her daughter before prom to have her hair done, apparently a regular event nowadays.<<

Eileen, I find this hard to believe. I'm 10 years your senior and in our school most of the girls got their hair done the day of prom. We all thought it was a little silly until our dates came down the stairs and took our breath away!

Perhaps it's an Ohio thing. Perhaps it felt a bit pretentious for our midwestern sensibility? David's from Ohio...David, did you have your hair done before prom in high school?

Craig, you're from southern Ohio, right? My dad's in Middletown, so I know some stuff about southern Ohio. They haven't stopped getting their hair done down there since the 1880s.

In most other regions of the U.S., girls stopped hair done before balls and other big events for a short period between 1920 and about 2001.

I just thought of something, far too late in the thread:

I'll bet the same people who are so sanguine about the inevitable unreality in photographs are the same ones who argued that James Frey's phonied-up memoir was just "the new style of memoir."

Am I right, my peeps?

Okay, here it is: Control freaks at http://slywy.blogspot.com/2006/01/control-freaks.html

I guess I was in a mood when I wrote it.

"What would the world be like if we let go of the fears that drive the need to control? If we settled lands that didn't need to be "improved"? If we accepted our faces and bodies and looks as the result of our own natural histories? If we accepted that aging is normal and has its own beauty? If we accepted that life is a cycle that doesn't need us and that death is just one part of the cycle? What we if stopped fighting the undefeatable and started living instead, free of the shackles with which our fears bind us and free of the illusion of control?"

Nicely said, Diane.

I was in your session at IABC and thought you were the only professional. You didn't come across as 'shrill' at all.

As a former photojournalist and current manager of several online and print publications, this is a serious issue that they did not take seriously. For example, for the OJ cover photo discussion, they darkened the original images even more, which seemed ironic at best.

The woman who was fine with touching up the guy's photo but had a real problem doctoring the woman's immediately lost credibility, while you maintained yours thoughout.

I say, run the photos -- scars and all!

Jamie, thanks for your comments; they reassure.

(For the record, I don't think the organizers darkened that O.J. image on purpose; I assume the projector/screen had that effect.)