Photo Manipulation of a Different Kind

It seems like every week we are hearing about a photographer getting busted for manipulating a photo. An added ball, a few more flares or an extra column of smoke to make that already acceptable photo a little bit better - or not. It’s a huge problem that has discredited journalism and tarnished the trust between the public and journalists. There appears to be no end in sight.

What about other forms of deception?

I look at a lot of photographer’s websites and have started to take notice of a different kind of manipulation, the enhancement of resumes and biographies. Just like the incident where a Southern California based sports photographer used marketing and advertising as an excuse to move a baseball in a photograph, many are doing the same to market themselves in words. Obviously, it is impossible to know who every photographer has worked for or how long they have been shooting, especially if you don’t know them personally. But some make it easy since their story constantly changes on websites and message boards.

A good example comes from the website of a San Francisco Bay Area photographer who claims to have 20 years experience. Normally, I wouldn’t even notice such a claim if the work reflected that kind of experience. In this case it didn’t. So, I poked around the web for a bit and found that he has several websites and blogs that offered advice, tales of exotic assignments and a lot of conflicting information. One thing that stuck out was an older website that claimed he had 30 years experience, another said 15. Now, I’m no math genius, but those numbers don’t add up. The same photographer also claims to have worked for Getty Images, my employer. I can’t find anyone in the company who has ever heard of him nor do any of his pictures appear on our wire. It just makes me wonder what is true.

Client lists can often be deceptive. One shooter has Sports Illustrated and ESPN the Magazine on his list of “clients” but has only appeared in these magazines by way of the pictures he shot on spec for a sports photo agency, not an assignment. By saying that Sports Illustrated is a client suggests you have an established relationship with the magazine which yields paid assignments. In this instance, that isn’t the case. Having said that “my photos have appeared in…” would have been more truthful.

I know, sounds a little nit-picky and its no secret that it happens in every industry. But really, how much different is that than adding or taking away an element from a photo. It’s lying. People get fired from jobs for lying on resumes.

Having been a freelancer, I know that marketing is a huge part of how freelancers generate their business. It is priority number one to impress potential clients. The question is, why risk your credibility by bending the truth to make yourself sound better than you are? There is more to lose than there is gained from this. As a journalist, I believe that it is your obligation to market your services and experiences honestly and accurately.

A photographer’s portfolio should be strong enough to stand on its own and not rely on exaggerated biographies and work history. I certainly think marketing journalism in an untuthful way is an unethical practice that should be questioned more often.