Not at all! ![]()
In a journalistic context, not much, because journalism is all about context. But the mass audience for photographs is much more about “images” for images’ sake. If someone sees an image of a beautiful landscape, what usually makes an impact isn’t where it was taken but, more likely, simply, what a beautiful image.
Unless folks are looking at images in a journalistic context, they usually don’t care about “integrity”, usually it’s more about beauty or feelings.
So you were intentionally taking a photo where truth is compromised by the unavoidable waste basket that someone forgot to remove until ten seconds after you took your shot? In that kind of case, was it so important that the shot was taken at exactly 20:15:10 or 20:15:20? If you had had the right access, would you have removed the waste basket before taking the shot?
What if you took a shot from one particular angle that avoided the waste basket? Would that have been manipulation of reality? After all, the waste basket that you so faithfully captured was still there but you could have chosen to change reality before taking the shot, or even by moving yourself.
So, the headline for the article accompanying your image is “Donald Trump shakes hands with Mike Pence”. Do you really think it is going to change people’s perception of history if you asked them to pose? How many times have you seen TV news footage when subjects have been asked to make their signature gesture to yet another photographer because the initial angle wasn’t good for that photographer?
So why have you moved from shooting film to shooting digital? You’ve changed your spots for that. You are no longer recording the effect that photons have on negative film. Instead you are now relying on Nikon or Leica to translate the effect of photons striking a silicon sensor into an electronic signal, which they then interpret according to a particular algorithm to yield an image that reflects their idea of reality, not yours.
At the moment, you seem to be trying to justify your adherence to photojournalistic rules by stating that the photos you have been sharing and asking for help with are for photojournalistic purposes. But I have yet to see any of your photos that justify that stance, and most barely justify the status of “photo illustration”.
Which is what I have been encouraging you to do. The world can only take so many photos of the entirety of Biscayne Bay before they want to know what little jewels may be lurking in its backwaters and docks.
Time for an example.
The port at Perros Guirec…
Meahh ![]()
The Black Pearl oyster bar at Perros Guirec…
Meahh ![]()
But how about the anchor on the Black Pearl oyster bar…
… or even the dock on the miniature boating lake at Perros Guirec…
No journalists’ integrity has been harmed in the making of these images ![]()
This is what I mean by artistic, not something “manipulated” to death. Yes, I may have removed specks of floating algae or anything else that distracts the eye, but the end result is images that folks (hopefully) would want to hang on the wall.



