A Stanford university CS 201 Project
by Frederick Vallaeys
April 15, 1998 |
An Excerpt From Visual Communication
Quarterly's article: "Photography or photofiction: an ethical protocol for the
digital age."
Back
THE VIEWFINDER TEST
Photographic credibility is based not on a reader's conviction that photography equals
reality; rather, the viewer will believe that a photograph is true as long as "the
evidence it presents corresponds in some strong sense to reality."(12) Simply put,
the viewer expects the objects in an editorial photograph to be no more or less than the
objects the photographer saw through the viewfinder. The Viewfinder Test does not prevent
the use of traditional processing and editing techniques, nor does it deny the
interpretative nature of the photographic image. It does, however, forbid the use of
digital manipulation (or other means) to add or remove material objects from an editorial
photograph, or to rearrange or substantially alter such objects within it.
THE PHOTOJOURNALIST'S PROCESS TEST
The credibility of an editorial photograph requires adherence to a photographic process
that the viewer knows and understands. Standard techniques-choice of f/stop, exposure,
paper selection, the use of fish-eye or long lenses or special films - pose no threat to
credibility because consumers know, for example, that a fish-eye is a "special
effect," and that reality is not black and white. Post-exposure processing also poses
no threat, so long as it is not misleading. For example, consumers already know, or would
not be shocked to learn, that photos are routinely cropped. Similarly, there's at least a
vague awareness of air-brushing. Most consumers, we suspect, know or would not be shocked
to learn that images of fashion models are often touched up to remove so-called
"imperfections."(13) But when the technique is outside the bounds of accepted
photojournalistic practices for editorial photographs, the Photojournalist's Process Test
is violated.
Professionals offer various rationales for materially manipulating editorial photographs,
but in our view, any manipulation that deviates from the norms of photojournalistic
practice as understood by consumers distances images from their referents, and thereby
fails the Photojournalist's Process Test.
THE TECHNICAL CREDIBILITY TEST
In the days before digital imaging, sloppy cutouts of celebrities frequently graced the
covers of supermarket tabloids. Such images lacked credibility and seldom misled readers
because of their technical artlessness. In a way, their lack of visual coherence sometimes
protected the credibility of legitimate photography in the pre-digital world, when
creating seemingly coherent composites was difficult, equipment intensive, and labor
intensive.
But now with minimum skill and effort, a nearly seamless "photograph" can be
concocted on the desktop at home. When the level of technical credibility no longer tips
off viewers as to a material alteration, a failure to disclose it risks a loss of public
confidence.
THE "PREGNANT BRUCE WILLIS" TEST
Is the photograph plausible?(14) Or, is its fictional content immediately obvious? When
Spy magazine's cover gave us a pregnant Bruce Willis, the implausibility of the
photographic image was apparent.(15) However, a Spy cover on which actress Daryl Hannah
appeared to be wearing a skirt, coat and hat similar to the outfit worn by Jackie-Kennedy
on the day President Kennedy was assassinated was less obviously a photo composition.(16)
Signals in the first image told readers that it had no referent outside the frame of the
photo, while the second image lacked, at
least at first glance, the clear signal that it was implausible. Similarly, in our view
Time's O.J. Simpson cover contained no clear signal of implausibility.
Several kinds of editorial photography have room for photofiction, whether subtle or
drastic, shocking or funny, or concocted with darkroom
techniques, airbrushing, or software. However, such manipulation entails responsibilities.
THE ESSENCE OF THE IMAGE TEST
When the fiction is not immediately obvious, we must inform readers of it in a manner
appropriate to the context. If our photofiction is not immediately obvious (it fails the
"Pregnant Bruce Willis" Test of implausibility) and accounts for a substantial
portion of the image's meaning, it requires a disclosure sufficiently prominent to mislead
no one. After the digital removal of actor Don Johnson's handgun and holster from a 1985
Rolling Stone cover,(17) a sentence fragment in the credit line would have sufficed.
"Composite photo" or "computer-enhanced image" or "digital
alteration by Foto Fantasy" would be adequate and hardly a burden on publications
already crediting photographers and often people
responsible for hair, makeup, fashion and so on. New York University's Interactive
Telecommunications Program has proposed a system of icons to identify both altered and
unaltered photos; the American Society of Media Photographers supports the plan.(18)
Sometimes fine print or a small icon is insufficient. New York Newsday's Harding/Kerrigan
composite appeared to show the skaters side by side on the ice at last. Unlike the Rolling
Stone cover, whose fictional content was a detail, here the fiction was the essence of the
image. The photo might also be described as visual speculation - here's how the skaters
might look when and if they meet. But would we tolerate a newspaper headline announcing
"Clinton Admits Guilt In Paula Jones Case!" accompanied by a fine-print
disclaimer that it was mere speculation about what might occur?(19)
The future tense of Newsday's subhead "Tonya, Nancy To Meet At Practice" is a
clue that the meeting had yet to occur, and the caption notes that the rivals "appear
to skate together in this New York Newsday composite." Good. But the much larger
"Fire on Ice" headline suggests that the meeting had already occurred, and that
it was exciting, even confrontational. The example raises another aspect of identifying or
labeling photo fiction: No one purchased the Don Johnson Rolling Stone because its cover
photo had been altered, but we think it's fair to say that
Newsday's front-page composite provided the issue's chief selling point,
compounding its potential for misleading readers.
When to Apply These Tests:
- Use the Viewfinder Test and the Photojournalist's Process Test when determining
photofiction;
- Use the "Pregnant Bruce Willis Test" when distinguishing obvious from
nonobvious photofiction;
- Use the Technical Credibility Test and the Essence of the Image Test to establish the
appropriate level of disclosure for photofiction.
Citation Information:
(v50 n1) Start Page: pS8(5) ISSN: 0199-2422
Photography or photofiction: an ethical protocol for the digital age.
(Visual Communication Quarterly)
Back
|