Ethics in the Dark

     I wrote a group of columns a while back on my take on the revised Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, but I didn’t delve too deeply into the topic of photography.

     The point of that series of columns was to concentrate on what was covered in the discussions at the SPJ National Convention. These discussions often (and predictably) centered around the written content. And sometimes rather excessively about commas.

      But, I really need to approach the topic of ethics in photography for two reasons. The first is that several entries in a national photography contest were recently disqualified for excessive Photoshopping. The second is that my first newspaper job came about because I could fill in for the darkroom tech.

      I learned processing and printing from my next door neighbor who was a professional photographer. I also took a couple of classes. My first “media” job was recording events for the historian of the Morris County American Legion when I was 14.

     My first professional job was on a small-town weekly, that glorious, and dying, breed. It was a great place to start off a career. Everyone carried a camera in those days, even the ad reps, because you never knew what would be happening.

     All of the milestones of someone’s life were celebrated in the pages of the paper. Births, First Holy Communion, scout events, first deer, senior prom, engagements, weddings and obituaries. We used to get a kick out of new hires who grew up in a city and looked askance at the proud young boy or girl with a first deer or really big trout. Those are rites of passage in small town America.

     Photos were sacred, a record of the lives of our readers.

     The darkroom at The Star-Gazette was designed by a 6’6” photographer. That’s roughly 14 inches taller than I am. I had a stool to stand on when the enlarger had to be in the top position. I also had to stand on it, hold onto the rim of the sink and lean all the way over to turn the water on and off.

     Negs weren’t always perfect. A little burning and dodging was sometimes necessary. And we weren’t Richard Avedon. We cropped out the extraneous details around the edges.

     We didn’t think too much about the ethics or the protocol of our darkroom touch-ups. But then, there wasn’t much that could be done.

     Advertising agencies could airbrush unwanted details. They had the tools and the time.

     But, it took work.

     Today, it’s way too easy to perpetrate post-production tinkering on photos.

     Lines must be drawn. The meaning of the photo can’t be altered, any more than words can be altered to change a story.

      And, just as the technology can’t be used as an excuse to fudge something in a story, it can’t be an excuse to make a photo something it isn’t.

       The right wing is fond of parading photos of President Barack Obama without an American flag lapel pin.  That’s so ridiculously easy to fake, it’s amazing they even did it. If they really want people to believe something negative about the president, you’d think they’d have enough ambition to work at it.

       The supermarket tabloids are so notorious for photoshopping celebrities to look incredibly bad, it’s become the natural reaction to assume all head shots are faked in some way. They even put one celebrity’s head on another body.

      Lying is lying. With words or with pictures.

      It’s sad the people who judge photography contests have to lay down the law and disqualify photos for fudging, but it’s necessary.  Just as necessary as policing for plagiarism. And just as sad.