Staging an image...

[rpcrowe]

There has often been discussions regarding the pros and cons of manipulating a documentary image in post production. Do you feel that the after shoot manipulation of an image is any more valid or less valid than "staging" a documentary picture?

Read this article about Steve McCurrry (of "Eyes of Afghan Girl" portrait fame).

https://petapixel.com/2016/06/07/eye...curry-scandal/

By the way, there was some post processing done on the Afghan Girl portrait. But, I don't know how much...

If staging an image is not O.K. - just what would be considered "staging"? Obviously, some of the lengths McCurry allegedly went through to "make" his image was staging but, wold asking a subject to face one direction or another; or to look up or look down be considered "staging"?

In other words, what interference b the photographer in the actual event is improper for documentary images

[Shadowman]

I don't think portraiture falls under the same restrictions as a typical photojournalistic image would, if the Afghan girl had been in the middle of working and McCurry said lets do that but over here under better lighting then that would be staging, he only took her photograph. Regarding the post editing stage, I think every publication has there own rules about what editing can be done and is acceptable.

[rpcrowe]

Along the same lines... Is using a polarizing filter to increase the saturation of a blue sky or to penetrate haze acceptable in "documentary" images. How about adding light by flash or a reflector?

[Shadowman]

Along the same lines... Is using a polarizing filter to increase the saturation of a blue sky or to penetrate haze acceptable in "documentary" images. How about adding light by flash or a reflector?

I would say both methods of manipulating light are acceptable, there will obviously be situations where you wouldn't or couldn't use those light modifiers but if you are shooting a demonstration and use flash there's nothing wrong, just might look odd or image might get rejected because the demonstrators look like deer in headlights. I think of flash as no different than using light from a lamppost, only difference is one is continuous light source.

[Manfred M]

In my view the only issue is when someone represents an image as unstaged or not manipulated, when in reality it is. I believe this is usually called "lying".

Of course, trying to define staging is something else again. That being said the arguments are really getting down to a level of philosophy. Let me give an example and ask you which of the following scenarios is where you would consider the image to be staged?

1. A candid shot where the subject is not aware of the photographer.

2. A candid shot where the subject is aware of the photographer.

3. A shot where the photographer asks the subject to change his or her pose.

4. A shot where the photographer asks the subject to move to a slightly different location to correct issues such as the background or the lighting.

5. A shot where the photographer gets the subject to move to a particular location and then pose in a particular way.

6. The photographer brings in a model or models and props and sets them up to emulate a scene he wants to photograph.

Scenario 5 is my understanding of how the famous Steve McCurry Afghan girl image was made.


Let's also remember that in the film days, especially when working with 35mm film, the level of post-processing and image manipulation was generally quite limited. Varying exposure, dodging and burning and a few other very simple techniques were the limit of what one could do. These tools were quite easy in B&W work, but burning and dodging in colour printing was extremely difficult and time consuming as a local colour cast would be introduced in those areas. Digital manipulation of images is not even 30 years old; the very first version of Photoshop was released just over 28 years ago.

The writer of the PetaPixel article lost my respect in some of his analysis He goes on about changes to the eye colour between two images and totally misses that the colours in the images are different too. Unfortunately, this is a "feature" of offset press printing.

Finally, we are discounting all of the techniques one can do with camera angles, focal length and shooting position. These all appear to be "legal" when we look at the rules that various organizations have put in place to define "no image manipulation".

I've posted both of these images before; taken a minute or two apart at the same location, using the same camera, lens and focal length. They both tell a completely different story.

[rpcrowe]

"In my view the only issue is when someone represents an image as unstaged or not manipulated, when in reality it is. I believe this is usually called "lying".

Of course, trying to define staging is something else again. That being said the arguments are really getting down to a level of philosophy. Let me give an example and ask you which of the following scenarios is where you would consider the image to be staged?

1. A candid shot where the subject is not aware of the photographer.

2. A candid shot where the subject is aware of the photographer.

3. A shot where the photographer asks the subject to change his or her pose.

4. A shot where the photographer asks the subject to move to a slightly different location to correct issues such as the background or the lighting.

5. A shot where the photographer gets the subject to move to a particular location and then pose in a particular way.

6. The photographer brings in a model or models and props and sets them up to emulate a scene he wants to photograph.

Scenario 5 is my understanding of how the famous Steve McCurry Afghan girl image was made.

The writer of the PetaPixel article lost my respect in some of his analysis He goes on about changes to the eye colour between two images and totally misses that the colours in the images are different too. Unfortunately, this is a "feature" of offset press printing.

Finally, we are discounting all of the techniques one can do with camera angles, focal length and shooting position. These all appear to be "legal" when we look at the rules that various organizations have put in place to define "no image manipulation"."

#6 seems to be the technique which McCurry used for many of his India photos...

IMO, unless a photo is published as a NEWS or PHOTOJOURNALISM example, I have really no problems with manipulating the subjects and the environment in order to make a more photogenic or interesting image.

However, probably the most famous and iconic image of WW-II (at least for the U.S. Marines), the raising of the flag on Mount Suribachi, Iwo Jima was "staged"

The first image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F...ag_Raising.jpg was shot by Marine Corps Photographer Staff Sergeant Louis Lowery. Celebration erupted when the first Marine patrol reached the summit of Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima on February 23, 1945, and raised a small American flag. A short while later, another detachment returned to the peak to replace the flag with a second, larger one. Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal captured the moment on film.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/wa...apans-doorstep

" Although the second flag raising was hardly noticed on Iwo Jima, Rosenthal’s dramatic photograph appeared on the front pages of newspapers around the country, and has become one of World War II’s most iconic images and among the most reproduced photographs in history." wikipedia

I have been told that the Marine Commanding General saw the original flag raising on Mount Suribachi from aboard an amphibious ship off shore and said that he wanted a "bigger flag" so everyone could see it.

I often wonder what Staff Sargeant Lowery's feelings were when the second flag raising image (undoubtedly the more dramatic of the two) shot by Joe Rosenthal became so much more famous than the Sargeants original image. I also wonder how the men who raised the original flag felt about being eclipsed in history by the group who raised the second flag...

Many older "documentary" photos were staged, beginning with the Crimean War and the U.S. Civil War due to the film and cameras used which were not adequate to shoot actual "action shots". Our Civil War photographers went so far as to move dead bodies to get a more photogenic image...

[Shadowman]

What if an image is presented and no one asks whether or not it is staged or if it is asked the photographer refuses to respond?

[Manfred M]

What if an image is presented and no one asks whether or not it is staged or if it is asked the photographer refuses to respond?

I would assume it was staged; but subject to correction by the photographer.

A reputable publication would have publicly available policies on how content like this would be handled. An art publication would likely have a different policy than one that takes a journalistic approach.

[Shadowman]

I would assume it was staged; but subject to correction by the photographer.

A reputable publication would have publicly available policies on how content like this would be handled. An art publication would likely have a different policy than one that takes a journalistic approach.

True, also I've seen accusations leveled, and at times there may be truth to the accusation; on macro shots of insects, whether or not the insect was alive, stunned, frozen or fixed somehow to get the shot.

[Manfred M]

True, also I've seen accusations leveled, and at times there may be truth to the accusation; on macro shots of insects, whether or not the insect was alive, stunned, frozen or fixed somehow to get the shot.

Yes and bird photographers who bait the birds to get their shot or cut away twigs to to get a clear shot at a nest. A nature photographer I know always carriers a small pair of scissors to clip off offending leaves or twigs.

Here we are getting beyond just the ethics of retouching an image or staging a shot, now we are getting into the ethics of potentially harming or killing a living thing. That goes way beyond staging a shot, at least in my view.

[pendennis]

There have been huge arguments since photographers started taking pictures in the 19th Century.

During the War of Southern Secession (1861-1865), the first images were brought off the battlefields to demonstrate the horrors of war. During the Battle of Gettysburg, photographers actually moved bodies to make for "better" images, sometimes yards away from where the soldier fell.

During the Great War and following, photos were staged to provide more dramatic images, and propaganda for one side or the other. Robert Capa's photo of the instant of death of a Spanish militiaman certainly isn't "settled journalism". The shocking photo by Eddie Adams of the Viet Cong guerilla being executed by the Saigon Police Chief, certainly put the Viet Nam war in a different view. Adams' photo, along with the film, were caught at the moment, certainly not something staged.

During the 1930's, under contract to the Roosevelt Farm Security Administration, Dorothea Lange, Margaret Bourke-White, Walker Evans, among others, documented the plight of poor farmers during the Great Depression. The photographs were all staged, and can't be considered spot journalism; documentary journalism, yes.

The point is that staging images is perfectly acceptable in some areas, particularly documentary journalism, but it depends on who's writing the check to the photographer.