Has truth ever been a constant in photography? Even in its earliest guise the photograph has been manipulated to enable myriad readings, whether that be actual physical manipulation of a negative or the subjective approach of the photographer to elicit a certain response from the viewer.
We can look at many photographs from the history of photography and see that even in the traditional form of capture (halides and emulsion) manipulation of a place or moment can lead to misrepresentation e.g. Fenton’s valley with or without cannonballs, the debate concerning Cappa’s Falling Soldier and also Joe Rosenthals reshooting of the Flag Raising Over Iwo Jima, all of which it can be argued, remodel truth. The advent of digital technology has only made the manipulation of truth more sophisticated. In August 2006 Reuters stopped association with one of its contributing photographers Adnan Hajj. He had been found to have excessively manipulated one of his images supplied to the agency. The image was of bombing that had taken place in Lebanon and he had manipulated smoke rising from the bombed buildings for dramatic effect; this was not the only time he had been found out. These examples relate to spot news where it is understood that images must be more objective and be able to represent truth. So, for the case of hard news illustration I believe it is imperative that there is no deviation from the truth and therefore no manipulation of the image that is presented in a factual manner.
Documentary, on the other hand is more about the telling of stories and can be viewed with a more subjective approach. In his book The Documentary Impulse, Stuart Franklin reminisces on a conversation he had with the art historian Olivia Maria Rubio, ‘The history of photography has already shown us that photography can lie … The idea that photography is the truth or the sole basis of reality has been surpassed. Reality is what we construct for ourselves.’ (Franklin, 2016, 193). He concludes his conversation with her by asking the question ‘Where do the boundaries of documentary lie?’ … ‘I didn’t say there were any.’ (Franklin, 2016, 195).
As an example of interpretive documentary story telling I looked at Jack Latham’s body of work Sugar Paper Theories. The photographic series tells the story of a 40 year old murder case in Iceland. Jack uses archive material from the time and combines it with his own recent photography and also illustration. The work is a very successful conveyance of an historic story that can only be delivered through his own interpretation. Although not specifically digitally altered, if it had of been, it would still be an effective form of documentary story telling. The aim of documentary is to tell stories. So, for me, if digital technology can enhance a documentary story then there is no need to dismiss it.
Stephen Bull states ‘…digital technology can be regarded not as representing a revolution, but as a gradual and continuing evolution in photography – and how it is thought about’ (Bull, 2010, 23). Photography is a technology, and like life, technology evolves. The evolution to digital is just another tool in way we convey our stories.
Bibliography
En.wikipedia.org. (2019). Adnan Hajj photographs controversy. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy [Accessed 7 Oct. 2019].
Jack Latham. (2019). Sugar Paper Theories — Jack Latham. [online] Available at: https://www.jacklatham.com/project/sugar-paper-theories/mwq1qn15us1wvn9py3utnajb4nap1u [Accessed 7 Oct. 2019].
Wells, L. (2004). Photography : A Critical Introduction. Routledge.
Franklin, S. (2016). The documentary impulse. New York: Phaidon.
Bull, S. (2010). Photography. London: Routledge.
Context and Narrative 