Photojournalism – True Colors

Author: Morten Svenningsen

Every now and then, the global world of photojournalism goes into self-oscillation. It happens when a photojournalist is caught manipulating a photo. News photojournalism is the most sensitive in this respect. We want to trust that what we see in a newspaper, particularly when the photos are used as accurate and trustworthy accounts of significant events, that they are accurate representations of the truth. And when a photojournalist crosses the line, a tidal wave of photojournalists starts wondering and discussing where the line is. What’s allowed and what’s not allowed in photojournalism? It’s a can of worms, but all the more important to understand. For photojournalists and their audience alike.

The basic rules that most photojournalists agree to is that news photojournalists are not allowed to add, move or delete anything in the photo. They are not allowed to stage a situation or instruct people to reenact an event for the camera (except when making a portrait). And they are not allowed to use “excessive” photoshopping, tone mapping, color manipulation etc.

But where exactly the line is between reasonably “enhancing” the photo for visual appeal, and distorting the photo beyond what is a faithful depiction of a situation is not always easy to say. If it was easy to draw the line, it would probably already have been done and agreed upon. The line is especially fuzzy when the subject comes to changing the colors and contrast of a photo.

It would be simple to say that colors simply shouldn’t be changed at all. The photo, as it comes out of the camera, should be used directly. The camera never lies, right? Well, not exactly! Different cameras and lenses actually “see” colors in slightly different ways. Not to talk about the good, old roles of film, each with their own characteristics. And when a photo is printed in different magazines or newspapers, they’ll come out slightly different. And even when viewed on two different computer screens, colors will appear slightly different.

And it’s not just limited to the camera. Take a photo on a cloudless day, just after sunset, and the true colors will in fact be quite blue. Take a photo of subjects lit by a bond-fire and the colors will be quite red. But in those situations, our eyes don’t see them as overly blue and red. Our brain compensates for the color cast from the blue sky and red flame. If such an overly blue or red photo was printed in a newspaper, the colors would appear to be too blue or too red!

So which one is the right representation of the true colors?

As I said, the line can be fuzzy. An argument often heard is that, if black-and-white photos are accepted in photojournalism, which they are, then why not also accept photos where the colors have been made stronger, in stead of weaker?

Technically speaking it’s the same category of adjustment: Color saturation.

But there is more to it than the technical aspect. And it has to do with whether the photo can be seen as an attempt to falsify the representation of reality. When we see a black-and-white photo, we generally know that “this is a black-and-white photo of something that was in color. We don’t know what the colors were, the photo doesn’t tell us that”. On the other hand, when we see a photo of something with excessive colors, we might just think that “wow, that subject must have been very colorful!”. And that is where we might be deceived! If the true colors were actually quite bland, but enhanced digitally in post-processing to look stronger, the viewer might wrongly get the impression that the colors were in fact strong. With black-and-white photos, that is simply not the case and that is why b/w is generally accepted in photojournalism. It declares itself as what it is. A photo with excessive colors doesn’t necessarily do so!

So where is the line when it comes to excessive colors? We are getting closer now. Let’s look at a real-world example:

In the global photojournalism organization, Reuters, the guidelines for photojournalists are firmly written down, allowing “basic color correction” as long as it doesn’t “dramatically change the [perceived] original lighting conditions”. They further specify that generally, “[color] saturation should not be used”.

These are very strict rules set up to preserve the integrity of the organization operating in multiple fields and for multiple outlets. They have to be strict with such general guidelines. On the other hand though, photojournalism is a creative profession. Not to say that photojournalists are “creating” reality, but they are creating depictions of it. So a more lenient line, allowing the photojournalist to use his creative talents a bit more, would be to say that it comes down to the intent of the photojournalist: Is the purpose of the photojournalist’s alterations to “enhance the look” of the photo or to “falsify, exaggerate or overly dramatize” the photo?

I guess this is where the line becomes fuzzy again. In some cases it will be very subjective to judge if the photojournalist’s intention were to beautify or falsify.

About the Author:

The author, Morten Svenningsen, is working as a professional photojournalist in Nepal/Denmark and is also the founder and director of Gaia Photos, an international forum for global photojournalism online. With a team of top photojournalists from around the world, Gaia Photos is your possibility to follow and comment on photojournalistic work, as it is produced and published!

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com - Photojournalism – True Colors