This document has been produced in response to feedback and further reflection and analysis on the written and verbal responses received from the forensic photographers and how this relates to the genre of social documentary photography.
From the responses it was clear that there are a number of similarities between the two genres. The first being able to capture the scene, to represent the ‘truth’ of the situation. The degree of capturing the scene varies between the two professions and the level of bias in the form of the photographer’s eye is a clear indication of the difference, but both are trying to capture a situation in order to record the event and either show a jury or the world.
Without a source of light an image would not form on the film, paper or sensor and it’s this direct correlation that people have argued gives photography a reason to be classified as a form of evidence. This direct relationship resulted in the police force enthusiastically engaging in the process of photography at crime scenes in the mid-1800s. However, the opposite could also be argued with the photographic process being accepted into the social documentary world where photographers could and do manipulate the image in order to portray their narrative. Examples could be Robert Capa and the image of the fallen soldier and the post manipulation of the image by Dorothea Lange of the ‘Migrant Mother’. Both not easy in the darkroom but the use of digital files it is so much easier to manipulate, however with forensic photography all files are captured on RAW and not changed. If changes are made then detailed notes are always included.
The photographic image can be very powerful and, in some cases, very persuasive. The image is often assumed as fact especially if you were not there to see the occurrence. This was discussed by Susan Sontag (1971) in her book ‘On Photography’ who goes on to say:
‘The photographer was thought to be an acute but non-interfering observer – a scribe, not a poet. But as people quickly discovered that nobody takes the same picture of the same thing, the supposition that cameras furnish an impersonal, objective image yielded to the fact that photographs are evidence not only of what’s there but of what an individual sees, not just a record but an evaluation of the world. It became clear that there was not just a simple activity called seeing (recorded by, aided by cameras) but ‘photographic seeing’, which was both a new way for people to see and a new activity for them to perform’.
The above quote by Sontag leads to the second link between the two genres in the area of human bias. Although the photograph looks like reality it is in fact an abstract, born from the photographer’s selection of the scene through their visual language, bias and interpretation. The forensic photographer has a very important message to communicate. It’s about control of the scene, and not allowing the image to be opened up to interpretation or any significant distortion. It’s about limiting the opportunity for anyone to ask questions or to second guess the situation and in a similar way this is the same with social documentary photography. The photographer aims to produce a record of the situation be it poor social housing, political uprising, environmental or drug abuse. These two aspects of photography have a strong link in their need to record the facts. The social documentary photographer has more creative control over the narrative however and can select the lighting, angle, mood, and position of the image. The forensic photographer has clear guidelines and protocols to work to on each and every scene to ensure no evidence is lost, destroyed or missed. They are trying to represent the real situation which may have occurred months or even years before.
The close relationship between the photograph and its use as evidence was explored in an exhibition held by The Photographers’ Gallery in 2016 entitled ‘Burden of Proof’ where the curator Diane Dafour, discusses three ways in which forensic photographers use photography as evidence but also the importance of using a written explanation to ensure the meaning is not lost:
- creating new protocols for documenting crime scenes (shooting)
- working out new ways to interpret photographic evidence (reading)
- showing photographic images in new ways to a courtroom (presenting)
She goes on to state:
‘People tend to think that the image, in itself, is an evidence or that the image, in itself, is almost never an evidence. It has to be validated, legitimised, interpreted, read and delivered by an expert who is providing words’ (2016).
The interest in photography has been very firmly grounded in the field of documentary from the start with the likes of Hine and Riis who documented social conditions and drove through legislation for change to recording the evidence of a simple family holiday. As photographers we know that an image is constructed, it is referred to as ‘taking’ a picture. It cannot be taken without having been influenced by the person taking that image – you can’t merely record. The photographer creates the photograph. Just like forensic photography, social documentary is influenced by the photographer, however in the latter the photographer is trying to portray a narrative of what was seen and so close to the perceived idea of recording and lack of reconstruction. If two social documentary photographers were asked to record the same scene the resulting images would be very different. In the case of two forensic photographers the images and processes they follow should minimise the differences between the resulting images. The viewer of the image be that the general public or a member of the jury should not forget that the photograph is merely a representation of the situation.
The third element concerns training and research. All New Zealand forensic photographers undertake a professional certification in order to work in the forensic field. This training continues throughout their career without which they are no longer able to work. A social documentary photographer on the other hand requires no formal training to go out into the ‘field’ to work. It could be argued that with the ever increasing use of social media and mobile technology and the speed in which images are uploaded and disseminated around the world we are all social documentary photographers. The point here comes down to which is evidence, fact and which has been manipulated? Which image can be used if required in a court of law? Would a court of law use/rely on an image from the internet or that of a qualified professional?
The final point that came across very clearly from the responses was based around ethics, what to include and what to show. The forensic photographer is driven by the need to capture the scene as truthfully as possible. There is a need to represent the situation to the court in an un-biased and objective way without distortion or obstruction. There needs to be a logical path through the scene so that the jury and the judge can understand without question. This may involve capturing extremely graphical images which are often classified as going ‘beyond the evidential value’. It is these images that the judge decides whether to show the jury or not. In this case the question is ‘will the image help or hinder’? is there a value in including this data?
In the case of social documentary photography, the standard of ethics whether to show an image is reliant on the editor of the publication or online site. This will of course depend where in the world this publication is based. A clear example of this were the images taken of the Madrid train bombing in 2004. The original images were extremely graphic showing the damaged train, bodies and severed limbs. In this case the French paper El Pais printed the complete unedited version, the UK Guardian selected to print the image in a desaturated tone to make it less graphic, whilst other UK new papers such as the Daily Telegraph either airbrushed the image or cropped the limb from the scene. These decisions are faced by editors every day. Other examples that one could argue helped bring awareness to social situations would be that of the image by Kevin Carter of the ‘The Struggling Girl’ (also known as the vulture and the little girl), this brought to the attention of the world the situation in Sudan. Few people know about the effects that this image had on the photographer. Other examples include the incinerated solider by Kenneth Jarecke and the image by Nick Ut of the girl running down the road following a napalm attack. Both examples of the extremes of war that should never be forgotten, and one could argue a cold case of reality to the world.
The above examples were published and the decision to publish based on the ethics of the editor at the time however, the same ethics are not applied to social media. These platforms are available 24×7 without any control. Despite calls from political leaders’ images are posted around the world that may or may not be true. Live streaming of graphic content such the mass shooting here in New Zealand of 50 people in a mosque. It took internet providers over an hour to stop the feed and try to remove the content, by which time the video had been copied and replayed thousands of times. This kind of imagery is available to anyone with internet access, the affects of which are only now being investigated and studied.
To conclude there are clear similarities between the two genres around capturing the truth and ethics, however one – forensic photography, clearly works in much more confined controls. Presenting a clear representation to a court of law and twelve members of the public could be the difference between an innocent person going to jail or a guilty one walking free.
References
Sontag, S. (1971). “On Photography’. The Penguin Group
Michele Usher 