This is an issue that probably only interests people that do photography or think about photography a lot. This is about the delusion that a photograph is somehow a record of something called reality. Actually, it is a record of reality. The question is — who's reality?

In defense of photographer Patrick Schneider
and the fictions of a "Code of Ethics"
by Pedro Meyer

Last week, the North Carolina Press Photographers Association in the United States, rescinded three Pictures of the Year awards given to Charlotte Observer photographer Patrick Schneider.

We find the behavior of many of the photojournalists whose names appear below who have passed very ill advised judgment on Mr Schneider, as well as many of the picture editors in their corresponding newspapers who share their views, to have reached such an incredible low point in this ongoing debate about the veracity of images in photojournalism. We might be reaching the dark ages again. But more about that later.
[...]

So let us review some of the accusations leveled at Mr. Schneider about the integrity of his images. Also in the context of the Brian Walski photographs in the Los Angeles Times, that led to his dismissal for compositing two images from Iraq.

First of all, we have to place all of this into a larger context, otherwise we end up looking solely at the "burning or dodging tool" as if that would somehow represent the overarching depth of the argument. If we are to delve into the issue of integrity I am sure that many of those newspapers that are so decidedly against their photographers using the tools of their trade as they see fit, have a lot to answer about many other issues that we might as well bring up at this time so that we can take a better look at the entire panorama of what is going on here.
[more]

unaltered

altered

The above two images are two of the offending pictures. W. Eugene Smith, the great Life photo-journalist, burned and dodged the shit out of his prints. And then he would use bleach on them. For this, he became a legend. Photography isn't what the camera sees — it's what the photographer sees. Only a non-photographer would think that what a camera (digital or film) records is particularly close to reality. I could go on about how cameras don't see things the way I do (for starters, I see in three dimensions) and how Ektachrome sure doesn't see green like I do and how I love the reds in Kodachrome — but I'll resist.