I have been asked by Lou Lesko for my opinion on retouching and its role in photojournalism. I do a lot of work as a retoucher myself, so he thought I might have strong feelings on the subject. But honestly, until he asked, I had not much to say on the topic. Now, under pressure to examine my position on the ethics of retouching in reportage, I find I actually do have thoughts on the matter.
There are probably a number of reasons I had not actively considered this question. Perhaps I can be naive at times, too willing to believe an image is an accurate depiction of an event. Perhaps the insane quantity of news we ingest in a day has numbed me to whether an image is genuine or not. I could just be a bit cocky and think that, since I know my way around Photoshop, I should instinctively be able to spot a hoax. Or I subconsciously don’t trust the media, which would seem to contradict my naivete. Or I just don’t care. I suppose it is a mix of all of the above with the mix varying depending on my mood, the time of day or what I had for breakfast. However on consideration, I do care and I believe it is an important discussion.
The common definition of retouching is anything done to an image after the exposure of film or pixels has occurred. The ability to drastically and believably alter an image is now within reach of anyone with a computer. But before Photoshop and megapixels, there were many ways to treat a piece of film after the moment of exposure. Even before exposure, the photographer has many choices — camera, film, lens, his position relative to the subject, framing, among others. The whole process is subjective in nature. The only objective pieces of the process are the camera, lens and the light sensitive material. They just do what they are told.
For the purpose of this discussion, retouching refers to reworking an image after exposure. Even with a modern digital camera that is still a difficult proposition. All those pixel sites affected by the light become a complex pile of binary information needing serious sorting out. A photographer can choose to shoot in RAW and make processing decisions later, or shoot in JPG and have the camera do all the processing. But the photographer still defines the processing parameters for the image at the outset. Factors such as white balance, contrast, saturation and sharpening levels can all be manipulated and have an effect on the final image’s mood and feel. Then there is extreme retouching, where pixels are changed or moved or removed. This would be akin to airbrushing and/or spot toning a print from film.
I don’t believe there is a way to make a truly objective photographic image with any medium, digital or analog. Even if we set up a camera to rattle off exposures automatically, someone has to choose where to put the camera, what the time intervals are and so on. A human must be involved making subjective choices.
That said, I believe in the case of photojournalism the goal of the photojournalist should be to record as objectively as possible the event they are covering. The only retouching that should take place is the manipulation of the tonal range of the image to fit into the medium that the image will be displayed in, whether it be a newspaper, a magazine or on the web.
One possible way to restore public faith in the authenticity of photo journalism could be through manufacturers making versions of their professional cameras, such as the Canon 1d Mark IV or Nikon D3s, with stripped down software capabilities. The camera would only allow exposure and focus control, essentially a modern day Pentax K1000. There would be no options for processing pixel data. All images would be saved as a 16bit processed TIFF. The image file would be tightly encrypted and would automatically record all actions attempted on the file. News agencies receiving files from these specific ‘journalism cameras’ would have a little more assurance of the authenticity of the images.
I welcome your thoughts on this matter.
Mark Cornellison. cornellison.net