Standards for Photography's Cutting Edge   

Many American photo editors might shudder at the Norwegian Standard. When a publication in Norway runs a photograph that's been altered – by digitally removing a soda can, for instance, with a computer – the nation's press council requires that a logo appear on the photo to indicate a montasje (montage).

Now a committee of photo editors and photographers has suggested that U.S. publications do something similar. It has called for voluntary disclaimers placed alongside photos using words such as "composite" or "retouched" if the images have been altered electronically or in the darkroom.

The five-member committee, appointed last fall by the newly formed Program on Copyright & the New Technologies at New York University, says guidelines are needed to protect the integrity of photojournalism. Because technology that can alter photos and leave no trace of tampering has become inexpensive and commonplace, many photographers fear readers won't trust any image if manipulation by editors becomes too widespread. More than three years ago, when WJR first examined digital retouching (June 1989), Michael Morse of the National Press Photographers Association observed that naive readers "have no idea how much alteration is going on."

The committee's members – Richard Weisgrau, executive director of the American Society of Magazine Photographers, Picture Editors Mark Bussell of the New York Times and Guy Cooper of Newsweek, Magnum photographer Susan Meiselas, and Fred Ritchin, an NYU photography professor – propose that unaltered shots be identified as "photo-reportage"; posed shots be "photo-portraits"; shots in which elements were arranged be "photo-illustrations"; and shots in situations in which restrictions are imposed, such as those required at the White House, be "photo-opportunities."

Photos with cosmetic darkroom or digital changes would be labeled "retouched" (such as when pores are airbrushed from a model's skin). When objects are added to or subtracted from a photo (as in the photos above), it would be called a "composite." And when a digital illustration is created without using photos, it would be designated a "computer-generated image."

The committee noted that such darkroom techniques as dodging, burning, cropping, balancing color, contrast adjustments or flopping a negative – methods used to restore or enhance an image rather than change it – would not be considered alterations.

Weisgrau and Ritchin say most of the 90 photographers, editors and media executives who attended a June conference at NYU to discuss the guidelines agreed that labeling is needed, especially when objects are added to or removed from photos. But they disagreed over the group's definitions and argued whether every photo – even those that are changed only slightly or not at all – should be labeled.

Morse supports labeling but says he is skeptical of a complicated system. "Unless we undertake a heavy campaign to educate the public, how will people ever discern the difference [between the definitions]?" he asks. And even with labels, readers may not notice. "Some newsmagazines manipulate their covers and say so inside [in the credit], but who checks?"

Whatever the method, Weisgrau says, "there was a clear recognition on the part of photographers that they want this protection."

Many newspapers and some magazines already limit or forbid digital retouching and require that photo-illustrations be identified. But the committee says it hopes to standardize labels and is working to revise its proposals.

"Our hope is that somewhere down the road, maybe there would be an endorsement" by the industry, Weisgrau says. "If there would be some symbol [to identify an altered photo] at least it lets the reader know that things may not be what they seem."