Fact, Truth, And Filoli At Night

"Archeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall..." 

Indiana Jones, from "The Last Crusade".

It's odd that this quote, taken from a movie, could help me come to grips with an ethical problem I have with a photo I made for the Journal. You see, since the advent of Photoshop, photographers have been forced to adhere to high ethical and professional standards. As such, we are tasked to make images that are a reflection of what was actually before us, and that the viewers of our photos can be assured that what was pictured actually happened. Photojournalism, like golf, has but one golden rule: Tell It Like It Is.

David Hobby, formerly of the Baltimore Sun and creator of Strobist.com, has contributed more to understanding the proper use of flash than anyone else, save Joe McNally of the Nikon Tribe. As a former photojournalist, Mr. Hobby was acutely aware of photography's power to misinform since the advent of the digital camera and post-production applications such as Photoshop. During the transition to digital, he made a simple rule that addresses truthfulness in imaging. In essence, he stated that if you limited yourself to darkroom techniques available to the black and white film photographer, you would remain within the limits of ethical documentary imaging.

Being a practicing black and white processor and printer since the early 1970's, I've taken this to heart. Since film was the only medium available, everybody was anxious to improve their images during the printing process. Dodging and burning, the standard darkroom techniques, have their Photoshop counterparts in the 21st century. Perspective control? We learned to tilt our easels (frames that kept our photo paper flat) to correct converging lines, But in all cases, the negative was essentially incorruptible, a moment in time forever preserved in a microscopic cluster of silver crystals suspended in emulsion.

Advanced technologies, both in the equipment and in post production processing, have radically pushed the boundaries between accuracy and truth. Affordable lenses, high ISO sensitivities, and Photoshop magic have managed to alter our acceptance of what is real and factual. An article written by Ed Elliot and posted on his blog  catalogued, in great detail, the many ways our images can persuade, intentionally or not, the viewer into drawing a conclusion that may be factual, but not entirely truthful. I present a case in point.

Filoli: The world famous Filoli Gardens and Estate were preparing to debut their winter decorations for the holidays. A press-only event had been scheduled to give us a chance to speak with the staff, take in the sights, and go forth to write our stories. My first job was one make a photo to accompany a story about the floral coordinator of the estate - a environmental headshot if you will. The second was to make a shot illustrating some of the lighting and to encourage  attendance in the event.

Shot #1: I decided to make the shot in the Gift Shop, choosing a majestic tree as my background. My editor had a better idea - Why not place her in front of fully decked with ornaments and standing beside a mountain of gifts? Her solution was brilliant, and this shot was quickly made with an on-camera flash bounced off the ceiling and built-in bounce card raised for some additional sparkle.

There are some important qualifications about this photo that need to be made. First, it is obviously not a candid because the subject is looking straight at me. Second, she was in the gift shop at our request, since it was raining outside and the message of "Christmas" was as important as her job as Horticulture Manager. And finally, there was some "crime scene manipulation". I moved a stuffed horse to the left so that the "S" in "Santa" was clearly visible. All in all, it's not a tour de force in artificial lighting, but it got the job done within the looser constraints of community photography. Fact, yes. Truth, meah...

1/8 second, F 5.6, ISO 3200, Cloudy white balance

Shot #2: I'm  conflicted with this one. It was meant to illustrate what a person might actually see if they joined the nightly tour. These trees, plus the lights draped about their limbs, formed a natural bower leading to the main entrance to the mansion.  When I encountered one of the publicists rejoining the docents inside, I thought there might be a photo here, so I framed the shot and asked her to walk toward me from the house until a suitable balance between the subject and the background was achieved. By selecting a shutter speed of 1/8 second, I was able to get the detail in the trees and the cobblestone walkway. I had my subject look up slightly so she could be lit from above. I did use a tiny bit of fill flash, directed up to prevent burning out the immediate foreground. 

1/15 second, F 5.6, ISO 3200

Nice photo Tom, so what's the problem? In reality, only an owl could have seen as much detail as you see here. Through the miracle of high ISO settings, I've presented the viewer with a scene no human could have seen unaided. 

If you look at the sample on the right, you'll get a better idea of how the scene actually appear. Here, the individual lights are properly exposed (no highlight blowout), but there is little detail in the midtones, and none whatsoever in the shadow areas. Clearly the exposure boost of a full stop completely transformed the image and made it printable, if in theory, less accurate.

In short, it all comes down the conflict between fact and truth. The technology gives me an effortless means of recording the facts, down to the smallest detail. But truth, the final interpretation made by the viewer, can still be manipulated to promote an idea. Luckily for me, the community photography venue allows for promotion of a social agenda, one that allows me to always present the bright side of truth.