National Geographic in "Fantasyland"?
In February 1982, the flagship publication of the National Geographic Society, National Geographic, created much controversy when it used the "Scitex computer digitizer" to squeeze together images of two Pyramids to fit its cover's vertical format. To say the least, the incident raised many questions as to the practice of image manipulation for journalistic purposes.
Fast forward 24 years, and another National Geographic publication finds itself in some hot water (well, more like luke-warm) over a composite image it used for journalistic purposes.
This image, "shot" by Chad Ehlers/Getty Images, is featured in the magazine's sister publication National Geographic Adventure for the story "Hawaii's Wild Frontiers" in the February 2006 issue.
After "several" astute readers questioned the authenticity of the photo, the magazine published a small subtle statement in the April 2006 issue that revealed upon further investigation the image was indeed a digital composite.
"Early in the selection process we were assured by the photographer and his agency that the photo was real. While Hawaii is a place where magical things happen, further technical analysis proved—and the photographer eventually admitted—that the image was a digital composite." - page 17; April 2006
With this, two questions popped into mind: 1) who is to blame for this? 2) did the editors at National Geographic Adventure really even care that this was a composite image?
Before we can assign blame, there has to be some wrong doing. The quoted statement isn't apologetic, so who's to blame is kind of irrelevant since the magazine hasn't admitted to doing anything wrong. They simply claimed they were misled.
Did they even care that it was a composite image? Possibly, but in an age where digital manipulation is a common occurrence, they probably don't have time to scrutinize every single image nor feel it is necessary. Who knows how many composites have gone unnoticed?
We could endlessly debate the ethics of using composite imagery for journalistic purposes, but with this particular magazine, its use in this case seems to contradict its core purpose.
According to the magazine's Photographer guidelines, "Generally, we are interested in places accessible to most travelers—not just the intrepid or wealthy."
The problem with composite images is that they are fantasy—made up; therefore, the places documented in them are not accessible to anyone because they don't exist. It's as if I Photoshopped a stack of $100 bills on my desk. That place with the stack of $100 bills on the desk doesn't exist. It's fantasy.
On the other hand, the word "Adventure" does connote an element of fantasy, so maybe it's expected. The magazine definitely knows its thrill-seeking audience, and they probably realize they won't offend many of their 500,000+ paid readers when and if they get "caught" by a few purist "troublemakers". Maybe in this day and age readers are willing to accept some composite imagery as reality.
That's fine. Let them. But I sure as hell won't accept it as reality. Maybe that's naive. Maybe I'm old school. Maybe I'm being a bit hypocritical. Maybe I'm the one really living in a fantasy land:
Maybe I'm the one who needs a dose of reality.
Hawaii anyone?
It's a topic that I can't see ever going away and an increasingly important one. What's particularly disturbing in this case is that the photo is so clearly the result of digital manipulation. So there's really no way for NG to emerge from this with its integrity untarnished. Will they learn from it and put in place more rigorous methodology to ensure that their photos can be trusted? One can only hope.
Well, the lack of attention this has received and the lack of response to the attention it has received really does show that consumer print media borders on irrelevancy.
It's a shame, though, because the one thing that keeps print on life support is its perceived credibility.
The fact that this is NG and not Cosmo is reason for concern to me. NG has a reputation as having great journalistic photography second to none. This would seem to fly in the face of all NG stands for.
National Geographic has been losing credibility for quite sometime now. They no longer care if it's factual. They seem to care about two things these days. Is it kewl and does it have drama?
Nice piece!
Decades ago, when I was a young photography student, NG was the gold standard op the photographers art. Besides pushing film or dodging and burning images for clarity, the negatives did reflect what you saw on the page. If you couldn't legitimately take a sunset shot like the pro's in the magazine, well, there was always wedding photography...
So, where has the professionalism and artistry gone? Don't try to tell me that this compares to real composition thhrough the lens. Where is the pride of the true craftsmen? Now, it's just crafty...
We believe the question should get really to the root; on the purpose of the magazine.
Maybe NG is more interested in something else...we feel really sorry.
Maybe it should read "we could bring you this close - graphically" in some other reading material.
We think Steven is right on the perceived credibility..We were just hoping that can be kept to advertisement/politics.We hope.
We believe the question should get really to the root; on the purpose of the magazine.
Maybe NG is more interested in something else.We feel really sorry.
Maybe it should read "we could bring you this close - graphically" in some other reading material.
We think Steven is right on the perceived credibility.We were just hoping that can be kept to advertisement/politics.We hope.
I am the photographer that shot this image published in National Geographic Adventure and can attest that both Getty and National Geographic are not to blame. I was asked twice in advance by Getty and told them this image really happened. Why? It did really happen, exactly as the image depicts. As the humpback came out next to the girl and so close to our zodiac I blurred the original shot, then captured a subsequent breach and out of pure frustration later make this composite. I wrote a letter of apology to both Getty and National Geographic and have lost my right to submit any further images to Getty for my failure to be forthright from the outset, this after being with that agency some 25 years going back to the Tony Stone days. Losing the major part of our livlihood over the failure to label an image correctly was fair punishment and I accept it. As mentioned, the reason I did not label this a digital composite was that this shot and situation is exactly what happened, with the swimmer, whale position and time being nearly identical. Composites usually are products of ones imagination or wishful thinking and then become the computers creative licence to fictionalize. This was just a blown shot that I wanted all too badly to bring back to life and then failed to submit as a "fake/composite".
All I can say is that Grandma was right 60 years ago, it never pays to lie.
After my comment yesterday I realize that besides apologizing to Getty and National Geographic, I should be apologizing to the readers and subscribers. I recall that as a child I browsed through Grandpa's old National Geographic magazines were a few seeds of curiosity and adventure were likely planted by such articles as the one about the Kon Tiki floating across the Pacific. Later I recall a single last page series of images showing a wounded bull elk challenging a grizzly bear and being tossed into a river. The photographer talked about his nervous efforts to keep the camera steady and his good fortune at being at just the right place at the right time. Everyone that has every looked at National Geograhic probably has their own favorite shots or story. They can be inspiring and certainly they have lead more than just this one photographer to a lifetime of travels. I also now wonder how many other photographers have missed capturing their most exciting or dangerous moments, especially wild life photographes? Watching a kill or being attacked with camera in hand and failing to capture it on film. I missed that exciting circumstance when the whale breached a few feet from our small boat and then tried to bring it back to life with the computer. I wonder how tempting it well be for others to use 'photo shop' in this same way now that digital photography is the norm? If digital images are being printed in all magazines, are not most of those images going through 'photo shop' before they reach the reader, and if so are not all those images being tweeked to some degree?
Chad,
First of all, let me just say thank you for your honesty and posting your feelings in public here.
I think your second post really gets at, in part, the point of my blog. Do audiences even care anymore if photos are digitally manipulated?
A few individuals might, but what about the audience in general?
How could a few readers question the photo, as it appears in a magazine, as a composite and not the photo editors at NGA?
Steven
I am not sure of all the facts, but as I tried to say, in this case I believe the fault lies with me and not with NGA. I believe they probably asked Getty to inquire with me as to the authenticity of my shot before going to press and then again afterward. In this case you have to toss all the crap my way. I do believe with the dawn of digital cameras and the common usage of photo shop, that the enhancing and altering of images will become ever more tempting and common place. For me it is perhaps ironic that I still shoot analog (film) and have no idea how to use photo shop...and once detested anything fake. Now I admit the temptation to put two of my own images together has tainted this past purest.
If photography is not our visual story telling medium and we don't use truth as the bottom line, what do we have. Veracity is all the medium has. It is the soul of the medium. To step over that line is to make a deal with the devil— and give away the store! — Literally in Chad's experience.