Gray Matters: 'Why does this keep happening?'

Contents:

Contests:

Newsletter:

Members:

About Us:

Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

|| SportsShooter.com: News Item: Posted 2007-04-23

Gray Matters: 'Why does this keep happening?'
Jim Merithew contacted some big wigs in the photography world to pick their brains about digital manipulation.

By Jim Merithew, San Francisco Chronicle

Photo by Jim Merithew

I want to thank everyone who sent me emails in regards to my first two columns (or anybody who read them for that matter). I won't be able to respond to all of you individually, but rest assured I am taking your suggestions into consideration and will be using the input in future columns.

Most of you thought that I had taken it too easy on Allan Detrich and everyone wanted to know why we should believe him about not setting up photographs. There was a lot of speculation, but I did not have anybody come forth with any proof of such cheating, so I have to take the man at his word. But let me say this: he is down. And out. So we can stop kicking him and try to figure out how WE can stop it from happening again.

In the hopes of getting some insight from the inside of the business I contacted some big wigs in the photography world to pick their brains, including their initial reaction to the news.

"Geez - another guy commits professional suicide doing something he knew was wrong. .... stupid. .... Darwinian. Sad," said Scott Sommerdorf, Director of Photography of The Salt Lake Tribune.

"Seriously, why would anyone take the time to alter pictures to that extreme? It baffles me. Nothing in life is perfect, which is why photographers have strived to be excellent at what they do by making order out of chaos through moments and the use of different focal lengths. Screw the tree branch. It's there. Move yourself. As you said, Jim, go out and make a better picture," said Sue Morrow, deputy director of photography of the The Sacramento Bee.

"Why does this keep happening? What is the motivation for such an absurd ethical breach? What other lies are out there that didn’t get caught?", said Randy Greenwell, Director of Photography of the San Francisco Chronicle.

"Didn't surprise me... there is a cultural thing among many photographers that say shit like this is ok," said Tim Rasmussen, AME Photography of The Denver Post. "We have talked about this in our first staff meeting and I made it clear that this is unacceptable. Every place I worked it was a fireable offense."

“(It was) appalling enough for us to discuss at our weekly editors meeting," said David Pierini, Chief Photographer of the The Herald, Jasper, IN. I wish I could say we have one person whose sole job is to edit every image, which would be one way for newspapers to prevent such indiscretions. Our three-person department tries to edit each other as much as possible and so we often see each others' whole shoots. As we are working in Photoshop, it is not uncommon for us to ask each other questions about toning and whether something looks "over toned."

It is clear that we are appalled. Disgusted. Confused. Flustered. Angry. Befuddled.

The emotions have run hot, but what I wanted to know was whether this is truly an isolated incident or is it going on under our noses on a regular basis? The general consensus from the people I talked to for the column was that they trusted their people, but that they were going to be reiterating their organizations ethics policy.

“I would like to think I know the people I work with and can say without fear that no one at the Indianapolis Star would ever do something like this. Everyone certainly knows our stand on ethics and is held responsible for their actions,” said Mike Fender, Director of Photography of the Indianapolis Star.

"We have strict and specific ethical policies at the San Francisco Chronicle. I trust our staff and work under the assumption that they are always in compliance with our policies. I’m sure Mr. Detrich’s co-workers and supervisors worked under the same assumption. It has to make everyone in the business a little uneasy," said Randy Greenwell.

"The work environment should (hopefully) allow photographers and editors to ask questions when they aren't sure about a fine line or gray area. It should be an ongoing and open discussion," said Sue Morrow.

Folks like Pierini and Kevin Swank, AME / Visuals, of the Evansville Courier and Press, talked about the long tradition of documentary photography at their papers and how real pictures and ethics not only play into what they do everyday, but are a big part of what they look for when hiring staffers and interns.

So by this point I am not in the least bit surprised about what I have learned and neither should you be. I talked to some great people in the business and they talked about the need to keep the line of communication open with their photographers. The need to know which ones might have a tendency to strive for perfection in a way that might lead them to make a lapse in judgment and the need for the message to be clear and consistent.

They also talked about how having a photo editor doing the edits is not only a stopgap for ethical infractions, but important for a photographers continued development and the only way to assure the best photographs are making it into print.

“The bottom line - and this is important to me as a leader: frame-by-frame editing is about understanding how your staff works. It's not about "catching them doing something wrong". It's about knowing your staff, how they think, and building trust,” said Morrow.

Well, all that’s great if you work at a place that is staffed with amazing photo people, who are editing your every frame and coaching your every move, but what about the majority of you out there who are lucky if you get a portfolio critique once a year at the Flying Short Course?

You see the Chronicle is my ninth newspaper (including internships) and at most of the places I worked early in my career (if you can call it that) we didn’t talk about photography, let alone ethics. And since the photo staffs were tiny we barely ever got to comment on each other’s work, let alone look to see if the others were crossing some ethical boundary. I was alone to shoot, edit, crop, dodge, burn and at a couple of places I even made my own color separations. (Yeah, yeah, I’m old. But I didn’t have to paint the emulsion on the glass plates, I missed that by a couple of years.)

Anyway, if indeed you are surrounded by great picture people making sure that you are making great photographs, and following strict ethical guide lines, then bully for you. But if not, you should be seeking out someone who can help you navigate the treacherous waters of photojournalism, not only to talk about great photography, but to talk about living a gray free photography life. Find a photographer in a nearby city. A mentor. A guide.

Or just continue to read this column.

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and the author alone. They do not represent the views of his employer, co-workers, friends or family.

(Jim Merithew is a picture editor at the San Francisco Chronicle. Jim invites you to direct your questions and comments about this column and other issues involving photojournalism ethics to him through his member page: http://www.sportsshooter.com/merithew.)

Related Links:

Merithew's member page

Gray Matters: 'What I did was wrong, and I apologize.'