Is it time we disclosed image edits with universal symbols?
Oct 1, 2019
Dunja Đuđić
Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, concerts, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.
Share:
I believe that most of us edit our images to a certain extent. But if you’re a photojournalist, the amount of editing you can apply is minimal. If you go overboard, your work may even be considered unethical. But can this be solved differently? Should photojournalists be allowed to edit images if they openly disclose it? Michael The Maven discussed this in his latest video, and it’s certainly an interesting topic.
Michael’s video is a follow-up to another of his videos he posted about a month ago, about photojournalists who were caught cheating. In that video, he listed four basic rules of photojournalism:
- Do not direct
- Do not heavily edit
- Do not mislead context
- Do not steal
A YouTube user max d. machy left a comment on that video which inspired Michael to film the latest one. The comment reads:
“Journalism should be allowed to make use of creative techniques. To illustrate issues. To stop people moving away from print and quality online media to ridiculous social media posts. That’s my view despite your excellent arguments.
A way out of the dilemma would be to disclose the treatment, ideally with symbols indicating whether there was an interaction, a staging or editing going on.
Not allowing the photographer to talk to the subject takes away an essential element of portrait shots. Or somehow it is trying to limit the story-telling abilities of the photographers. Which would only work for robots taking photos.”
Michael agrees with Max that it could be a good idea to disclose edits in documentary images with a set of universal symbols. This way, photojournalists could use edits such as cropping, removing a distracting element, or even AI in their photos. But they should still represent reality, and I believe that the edits shouldn’t change the context and the story, only add to the artistic expression of the photographer.
Now, I am not sure this is a good idea in photojournalism. Although photographers can disclose with symbols that they edited photos, we still can’t know to which extent they were edited. We can’t say whether the edits influenced the context and altered the story. But on the other hand, I believe that these symbols could be a good idea, only in different genres.
There are so many beauty and fashion images in magazines, on billboards, ads, and of course on social media. They make people create a distorted picture of reality, and they set totally unrealistic beauty standards. Disclosing edits in photos like this could make people more aware of the fact that no one has flawless skin, “perfect” body or anything like it. Although the fashion and beauty industry still requires perfectly retouched images, noting that they were retouched could affect the viewers (especially young girls). It could reduce the negative impact on their mental health.
What do you think? Is it a good idea to disclose image edits in photojournalism? If not, would you apply it in different genres? Or you’d ditch it altogether?
[Disclosing Image Edits With Universal Icons – is it time? via ISO 1200]
Dunja Đuđić
Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, concerts, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.
Related Posts
This artist edits photos in real life, and the result is brilliant
34 Edits To A Single Road Photo – And Who Won The Best Edit Challenge
AfterShoot culls and edits your photos in the time it takes to make a cup of tea
No idea how to edit that photo? Be inspired by these 7 photographers’ edits of the same RAW file
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
17 responses to “Is it time we disclosed image edits with universal symbols?”
No. Just no.
Hell no!
Isn’t it a common sense to be a “no”? ?
I don’t see the point for light editing, such as crop, exposure, WB…etc. You can change those settings in camera already.
If you interfere the scene and do not portray the event or subject as they are, then it is not PJ anyways
Yes in the context they are talking
For Photo Journalists who deal in “recording truthful situations”, this might be a way to create transparency in an area of photography where image manipulation is a hot button issue and can have very serious real-life implications.
Outside of that – no.
Since most pros use RAW, the photo Must be edited to get a decent photo. Therefor all photo journalists must shot directly to jpeg? If the photo is a clear representation of the actual scene (that which the human eye captures) contrast and intensity edits are OK. Things that actually change the subject and/ or background should be noted for photojournalism.
Can we assume, as informed adults, that image edits happen all the time that shade the story of an image, and that we don’t need to document when its happening because it’s already happening as the photographer takes the image anyway?
Famously, just cropping an image a certain way can give a VERY different impression. Just taking the picture from a certain angle or leaving out a wider frame from the capture can completely modify the impression of an image. I think things like creative retouching is the least concern. If you can’t also include the original image for comparison, retouching symbols have little useful information for understanding what a photographer did.
No, this just seems like itd ruin a good photo with distracting symbols.
ABSOLUTELY NO. I`ve been a photojournalist for 40 years. I do not want to see journalism move to Goebbelsian time and slowly loosing it`s credibility. Fascism is seeping slowly everywhere ahead and we as journalists must keep out pictures as truthful as possible.. As were the facts we did shoot..
Trumps regime is using the word fake news enough. Altough it is not. But what if our work really turned to be real fake journalism. Then there would be no coming back ever. So NO!!!!!
Actually, President Trump has been proven right on many occasions. Fake News is real!
He has lied over 11 000 times during his presidency. Your alt right media ABC lies everyday. Those who cannot read the media is fake. Over 33 million US habitants cannot read properly :-)
Evidently, they have problems composing sentences as well! LOL
Ugly.??☹️?
Then it wouldnt be photojournalism but photo fantasyism.if thats even a word.
Photojpurnalists dont get to decide the story to be told only in how it gets told. Any universal symbol should be one that tells of what lens was used and why
Only if it is a composite or some recreation. We used to do the same thing back in the darkroom days. Crop, contrast, color, exposure. All just basic controls to try and perfect an image. If you are talking about art photography, then do as you like. Artists don’t disclose how they make their art at every step. No law to force it.
Here is the Hierarchy of Documentary Photography which I created.
1. Candid events unfolding as they happen.
2. If it cannot be perfected or obtained as a candid, then the photo must be posed.
3. If it cannot be perfected or obtained as a posed photo, then it must be staged with the proviso it is a recreation of past events, preferably with the actual persons reenacting the events.
4. Figments of the imagination. Varies in documentary value. Can be based on pure speculation or a recount of events.
They all can have historical value, but it is good to know where they fit in.
I post process almost all my photos and most are cropped. If I don’t post process it, then it is probably a fast grab snapshot for illustration. My goal is for candid work, but I cannot get it all the time. And in the big picture, every photo cannot be perfected as a candid. Some doc work requires cooperation from the subject.
Sometime I will clone out a stray water bottle or cig butt as long as it does not have a material affect to the honesty of the photo’s message. No one is hiring me to do this work, so I just have to please myself.
To me, the successful photo has a poetic flow to it. This flow can be one of harmony or one of discord. Whatever it is…the photo flows. This poetic flow is what separates the snapshot from the photograph. It is the same with the successful poem vs. a mass of meaningless words. One has poetic flow, the other does not. The poetic flow makes it stick in our mind.
Sometimes the situation does not allow for much poetic flow. You just want to record that moment in time. But either way we try to put the best image forward that we can if we care about our work.
If you are talking about infrared flash, then they ALL have to be post processed or they look like trash.
Who decides if alterations are “Minimal”? Would Michael the Mavin consider Ansel Adam’s ‘Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico’ old school’s manipulation tp be “Minimal”. He used all of the tools available at the time to produce this work of art. The photo is iconic! How many works of art would be have their beauty diminished by this practice? If it is presented as “Factual” in a contest, then research