Ethics on retouching and other "corrections"

[Jmarmck]

Ethics doesn't exist in the digital domain...

lol you got that right.

[Light Guru]

The ethics of it depend on the purpose of image. If you are doing photojournalism then yes it would be unethical, but if you are doing art photography then it's not.

Digital has nothing to do with it. People have been manipulating photographs sense the beginning of photography.

[Tin Can]

No art rules, or is it there are no rules to art.

Forensic photography is probably the only place we cannot lie and cheat, or not.

Winners write history...

[cyrus]

Unless youre a news or documentary photographer there is ethical issue.

Back in the 1970s there was a huge debate over whether cropping was unethical. That's was in the days of naivete, when we believed in truth and objectivity in photography.

Seems like photography as an art form has always been saddled with this expectation that it is supposed to show reality more objectively than any other art form, perhaps to its detriment as an artform

[Doremus Scudder]

... Ethics only come into play if you misrepresent what you have done.

+1

I think this happens more than we realize, and often at a very subtle level. Many would have you believe that those vibrant, over-saturated colors were really there...

To the OP: my personal approach leaves no room for major manipulations such as removing power poles, etc. The challenge is in choosing point of view and framing the subject That said, I'll happily retouch out a too-white leaf or stray gum wrapper in a photo (they could just as easily have not been there) and I often do a little "weeding" and cleaning up of a scene before shooting. This latter is really a bit of manipulation pre-exposure.

Ask yourself what and why you are communicating and the question of whether manipulations such as you describe are misrepresentations will become clearer.

Best,

Doremus

[welly]

Who are you cheating? If you feel that its unethical to remove a pole or a bollard or whatever from your image, then don't do it. I guess the context of the image you are making is what counts. If it's for yourself, do what you feel is valid. If you're making an exhibition on "Rocks in a Pole Free Land", then you may have to think twice about it.

[Louie Powell]

This is a very old argument. When George Tice was making his classic New Jersey urban landscapes back in the 60's and 70's, he bragged about the number of cigarette butts he spotted out of his prints. Collectors screamed that he was distorting reality, and then paid enormous amounts to own those same prints.

[mdarnton]

All of the recent hoopla around editing has centered on journalists wanting to maintain the polite fiction that what they do is unbiased. How well is that concept working on you guys?

[Christopher Barrett]

Not surprisingly my viewpoint is very similar to Kirk's. It's only unethical if you have a statement next to your print reading "This is a factual account of this subject at the precise moment of exposure." Mind you that statement would be a lie. There is NO factual, unbiased account of any subject. There are no impartial photographers. We all project our background, our beliefs and our esthetic sensibilities upon every image we make.

Furthermore, if you keep up with where Art is really at in the world today, this discussion became entirely irrelevant at least a decade ago.

Here is a photo of mine from Monument Valley.



The sky is from one exposure. The light on the far cliffs from another. And the light on the low, midground rocks another. I sat there for hours getting everything I wanted for this image. Is the result a factual depiction of what happens naturally in this environment? Do I care? No and no.

What's the more valid approach: the image by a photographer who happens to snap a singluar image at just the right time or the one by a shooter who's willing to dedicate half a day to getting the image he envisions as a final piece?

Either! Both! Whatever. Just do what feels right. Go with your instincts and forget the rules. Otherwise, you're just making someone else's art.

</rant>

CB

[Bruce Barlow]

What would a painter have done? Not painted the offending elements, and we wouldn't think twice.