Comments on: Stepan Rudik, the kids, and the Institute… http://kiddingthecity.org/blog/?p=1046 Paolo Cardullo's open research diary and photo-blogging trip in the invisible city Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:51:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: alun severn http://kiddingthecity.org/blog/?p=1046&cpage=1#comment-653 alun severn Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:00:52 +0000 http://kiddingthecity.org/blog/?p=1046#comment-653 This is a really interesting example of an issue that serious photojournalism cannot but deal with. It seems to me there are two quite different issues here. The first might be regarded as the extreme cropping and processing of the questioned image. It doesn't make for a bad photograph (in fact, quite the reverse), but it *does* significantly alter the context and to some extent the content of the story. Without it, for instance, one would not necessarily be aware that fists are bandaged prior to fighting. The line that one might take on this rests probably more on subjective, aesthetic grounds than it does 'ethical' grounds. The second issue is the more pressing one -- that of digital manipulation that changes the actual content of the image. If World Press Photo says that the current, accepted industry practice is that nothing must be removed or added, then I think Rudik's disqualification falls into context: the foundation is trying to hold the line on a policy that must, even at the best of times, be under the constant threat of gradual erosion. Based on this, it would seem that the decision is the correct one -- or at least, the strictly accurate one. However, what interests me is what the reaction might have been had the offending foot simply been 'burnt out' rather than removed? Would that (whether performed in the conventional darkroom or digitally) have constituted the same offence? The real issue here is that there has to be a line in the sand. Whether an excised foot or added smoke and missile strikes (clearly alterations very different in magnitude but arguably not in principle), the line in the sand exists: nothing removed and nothing added. It seems to me that the foundation could make no other decision. The moment it allows *some* extraneous details to be removed from the published portion of the photograph it will open the door to a case-by-case judgement call on every photograph for which it has responsibility. This is a really interesting example of an issue that serious photojournalism cannot but deal with. It seems to me there are two quite different issues here. The first might be regarded as the extreme cropping and processing of the questioned image. It doesn’t make for a bad photograph (in fact, quite the reverse), but it *does* significantly alter the context and to some extent the content of the story. Without it, for instance, one would not necessarily be aware that fists are bandaged prior to fighting. The line that one might take on this rests probably more on subjective, aesthetic grounds than it does ‘ethical’ grounds.

The second issue is the more pressing one — that of digital manipulation that changes the actual content of the image. If World Press Photo says that the current, accepted industry practice is that nothing must be removed or added, then I think Rudik’s disqualification falls into context: the foundation is trying to hold the line on a policy that must, even at the best of times, be under the constant threat of gradual erosion.

Based on this, it would seem that the decision is the correct one — or at least, the strictly accurate one.

However, what interests me is what the reaction might have been had the offending foot simply been ‘burnt out’ rather than removed? Would that (whether performed in the conventional darkroom or digitally) have constituted the same offence?

The real issue here is that there has to be a line in the sand. Whether an excised foot or added smoke and missile strikes (clearly alterations very different in magnitude but arguably not in principle), the line in the sand exists: nothing removed and nothing added. It seems to me that the foundation could make no other decision. The moment it allows *some* extraneous details to be removed from the published portion of the photograph it will open the door to a case-by-case judgement call on every photograph for which it has responsibility.

]]>