Anyone who has spent a significant amount of time with photographers will recognize the moment when the quest for the ideal shot becomes more about something other than the truth. Think of it as ambition. Describe it as pressure. If the wolf was tame, or if the distraught farmer decided to walk through the field again after the first attempt failed, call it the silent calculation that no one will notice. The majority of the actual ethical issues in photography start at that tiny, seemingly innocuous moment.
Artificial baits and staged shots are not new topics of discussion. However, it is now more difficult to ignore, messier, and louder. Many photos were disqualified for manipulation or excessive digital processing during a particularly controversial World Press Photo competition. Allegations of staging and deceptive captions led to the complete revocation of one major prize. A follow-up survey found that over half of the news photographers admitted to occasionally staging photos, which was more concerning than the disqualifications themselves. Twelve percent reported doing so at least half the time. It is expressly prohibited by all major U.S. wire services.
There is more to the discrepancy between policy and practice than just bureaucracy. It suggests a deeper fracture in the visual journalism culture that has been growing for years.
This fracture is present in wildlife photography as well, and examining it can be even more uncomfortable. Some of the most well-known animal photos ever released were either staged or baited. Nancy Black, a marine biologist, was fined and put on probation for feeding killer whales while filming a video in Monterey Bay, a sanctuary where such interference is prohibited.
The Natural History Museum Photographer of the Year award was taken away from José Luis Rodriguez after it was discovered that the wolf in his winning picture was most likely not wild. When Gilles Nicolet staged a photo about ivory poaching using borrowed tusks, he faced severe professional repercussions while working for a major publication. Criticism has even been leveled at David Attenborough’s productions for narration that suggested wilderness footage was taken in the wild when it wasn’t.
These aren’t remote areas of the business. The standards are set by these individuals and organizations. Wildlife filmmaker Jeff Hogan, who has spent over thirty years filming in Wyoming and around the world, uses almost refreshingly straightforward language to explain his own methodology. Instead of taking part, he wants to be a witness.
He doesn’t try to control animals’ behavior, touch them, or offer food to entice them. In his opinion, it doesn’t really matter if another photographer thinks that’s too rigid. The key is to be honest with oneself about your true actions and motivations. It appears that this type of self-examination is less common than it ought to be.
The ethical reasoning is a little different in photojournalism, but the tension is the same. Staged news photography is the visual equivalent of fabricating quotes in a written story, according to Santiago Lyon, who served as The Associated Press’s vice president of photography for many years. It’s not hyperbole to say that. The image that results from a photographer encouraging a soldier to fire a weapon for the camera or asking a protester to hold a pose is not documentation. It’s a show disguised as reality. The viewer, who believes the image to be authentic, is being tricked in a way that they would find extremely offensive if they were aware of it.
The fact that not everyone agrees on where the line is and that not all staging is created equal makes this more difficult to resolve. Direction is a part of portrait photography. Politicians shaking hands and athletes holding trophies are examples of staged photo opportunities that are recognized as authentic when they are captioned truthfully. Transparency is the problem. An image produced in a controlled environment has a different ethical obligation than one presented as an unplanned documentation of reality. The issue is that viewers are rarely able to tell which is which.
In the larger discussion surrounding this, there is a perception that the industry has been too sluggish to regulate itself. When something doesn’t seem right, editors should check timelines and demand raw files. Before awarding prizes, festivals and award organizations should pose more challenging questions. Many working photographers have pointed out that the honor system is just ineffective. Furthermore, making a mistake has serious repercussions for the public’s trust, the subjects of those images, and the profession itself in a setting where a single powerful image can spread around the globe in a matter of minutes.
Some claim that the camera is truthful. However, the individual behind it is always making decisions. What to include, what to omit, and whether to create it or wait for the right opportunity. These decisions add up to something that either approaches or deviates from the truth. Even though this distinction can occasionally be inconvenient, it is still important.
