Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The Ethics of Photo Manipulation  (Read 30907 times)
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5885


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #220 on: June 08, 2013, 09:37:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Fisheye gives a circular image.  They may not want it for aesthetic and editorial reasons but willing to go along because of the nature of underwater photography.  I wonder if that is their reason?

I think it is because a fish-eye is not a fish-aye underwater, but a super-wide angle lens. Water has a cropping factor of approximately 1.3.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #221 on: June 08, 2013, 09:47:24 PM »
ReplyReply

"A pretty good joke."


For you perhaps.  but you're a clown.  What to do you contribute to the debate?  Why would you fail to disclose your phototoshopping?  Ashamed? Get the f out everyvbody else's life.   You contribute nothing to the discussion.  Go Photoshop a picture and leave.

Ken Richmond
« Last Edit: June 08, 2013, 09:53:13 PM by Ken Richmond » Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5885


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #222 on: June 08, 2013, 09:52:22 PM »
ReplyReply

... Whyu would nuyou faile mton dislcose your phototoshopping?  Ashamend? m Fet the f out pof everybodies life.  You contribute nothing to thew discussion.  Gp Pjotodshope an picture and leave.!


Ken, does the quote below (yours) explain the quote above? Grin

Quote
A bunch of us here have a few Ipads out watching this thread as the studio fills with sherry cask aroma from aged Irish  refreshments
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #223 on: June 08, 2013, 09:56:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm working on an IPAD keyboard Slobodan.  Apologies for the typing.  I have enormous respect for you and have admired your hdr landscape instruction. 

Ken Richmond
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5885


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #224 on: June 08, 2013, 10:20:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I was at an art fair today. Guess what I found:
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #225 on: June 08, 2013, 10:24:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Beautiful. Swart I'm talkin' bout.


Ken Richmond
Logged

John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #226 on: June 08, 2013, 10:44:08 PM »
ReplyReply

John, I completely disagree.  Surprising, right? Grin  Where is the moral imperative to disclose what was done in an artistic image?  Art is an entirely subjective arena.  Gursky created the scene as he saw it, or wanted to see it. The goal, with documentary/PJ is to try and maintain objectivity. 

I'd suggest a read of this essay by Guy Tal, http://guytal.com/wordpress/2011/02/12/lie-like-you-mean-it/.

Okay, I read the essay, and you know, it doesn't do much for me, because it doesn't reach any kind of defensible conclusion. Like you, I think all kinds of artifice is allowable in art. (I'm more of a painter than a photographer, and though my images look somewhat realistic, they obviously aren't an image of any scene that anybody's ever experienced.) But photography presents a peculiar and singular problem: that is, since its inception, photos have been presented as images of a certain kind of objective reality. It hasn't always been that, and there have been manipulations from the beginning, but of the billions of photos taken since the beginning, probably 99 percent are unmanipulated, straight-out-of-the-camera family photos, cat photos, snapshots, etc. Few iPhone photos are post-processed, because that's not what iPhone photos are for. And it's true, as Tal said, that there may be a roaring expressway a few inches out of the landscape photo, but if the photo itself is unmanipulated, then its an image of what was in front of the camera. So: the default position of a photo is that it's unmanipulated. It always has been that, and in general, manipulations before Photoshop were self-disclosing.

Art photos may either be manipulated or unmanipulated. Either is equally acceptable.

However, if you present for sale a landscape photo that gives every appearance of being unmanipulated, which is the default state of out-of-camera photographs, and in fact you manipulated, but then essentially deny the manipulation, you're being unethical. You're lying. Painters essentially can't lie about the images in their works: the images are what they are, individual creations that spring from the minds of the artists. But photographers, because of the peculiar mechanical method of making a photo, and because of photography's history as an "objective" medium, can lie, and they do, and that behavior is unethical. It has nothing to do with whether a piece is art or not, or whether its been manipulated or not, it's whether the photographer is lying.

To make it brutally clear: If you are in the American southwest, and you take a photo of an arch, and then you uses Photoshop to bring in a separate moonrise, and place the moon in the arch, I have no problem, though I wouldn't buy the photo -- it'd just be another inane Photoshop idea. But if somebody asks, "Does this represent what actually happened out there?" and you say "Yes," then I do have a problem. If you represent the photograph as an image of a natural fact, you're being unethical, no matter how beautiful the object (the photograph) may be.    
Logged
Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #227 on: June 08, 2013, 10:52:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you, cases stated and resolved....very thoughtfully.


Ken Richmond
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5885


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #228 on: June 08, 2013, 11:34:11 PM »
ReplyReply

...To make it brutally clear: If you are in the American southwest, and you take a photo of an arch, and then you uses Photoshop to bring in a separate moonrise, and place the moon in the arch, I have no problem, though I wouldn't buy the photo -- it'd just be another inane Photoshop idea. But if somebody asks, "Does this represent what actually happened out there?" and you say "Yes," then I do have a problem. If you represent the photograph as an image of a natural fact, you're being unethical, no matter how beautiful the object (the photograph) may be.   

John, that is an interesting example. While I agree with your reasoning, let me introduce a twist.

When I was in Yosemite, I had a full moon in the scene. Given the inherent dynamic range limitations of slide film, I got the scene mostly right, but the moon overexposed. I had another camera with me, loaded with a negative film, and I snapped the same scene perhaps minutes apart. Now, I was thinking of taking the moon from the negative film (which has a greater dynamic range) and photoshopping it into the slide film scene. This would satisfy your requirement ("Does this represent what actually happened out there?"), yet it will be not only photoshopping, but compositing as well. So, if I say "Yes," would I be unethical?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #229 on: June 08, 2013, 11:59:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan, Yes!

The reality is that astnommically speaking, no one knows what the astronomical colors are.  (Debatable since the advent of a Canon 20D(a)), but we know that  every color has a certain wave length for a certain amount of time (I'm eliminating the artifacts of heat here), but the reality is that color does not matter except for pretty pictures.  For data, astronomers really don't want color interpolation.  Colors reveal nothing important at the human visaual wavelengths.


Ken Richmond
Logged

Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #230 on: June 09, 2013, 12:31:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Meanwhile, let's see if Bob Fisher, the scatological clown, has courage enough to post his be pre and post photoshop work for all of us to evaliuate for "veracity" and "ethics>

Ken Richmond
« Last Edit: June 09, 2013, 12:33:18 AM by Ken Richmond » Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2811


« Reply #231 on: June 09, 2013, 01:31:04 AM »
ReplyReply

... that there may be a roaring expressway a few inches out of the landscape photo, but if the photo itself is unmanipulated, then its an image of what was in front of the camera.

In this case - if somebody asks, "Does this represent what actually happened out there?" and the photographer says "Yes," then do you have a problem with that? ("It has nothing to do with whether a piece is art or not, or whether its been manipulated or not, it's whether the photographer is lying".)
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #232 on: June 09, 2013, 06:08:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Meanwhile, let's see if Bob Fisher, the scatological clown, has courage enough to post his be pre and post photoshop work for all of us to evaliuate for "veracity" and "ethics>

Ken Richmond

Was Le Gray unethical?  Was Adams unethical?  Is camera movement during an exposure unethical?  Is using in-camera multiple exposure unethical?  Is combining multiple exposures in Photoshop unethical?  Is use of Active D-Lighting or Highlight Protect unethical?  Is in camera HDR unethical?

As far as my thoughts on the matter, I've stated them pretty clearly.  And multiple times. If you'd like more, I'd suggest buying my book.

« Last Edit: June 09, 2013, 06:14:29 AM by BobFisher » Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #233 on: June 09, 2013, 06:21:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Okay, I read the essay, and you know, it doesn't do much for me, because it doesn't reach any kind of defensible conclusion. Like you, I think all kinds of artifice is allowable in art. (I'm more of a painter than a photographer, and though my images look somewhat realistic, they obviously aren't an image of any scene that anybody's ever experienced.) But photography presents a peculiar and singular problem: that is, since its inception, photos have been presented as images of a certain kind of objective reality. It hasn't always been that, and there have been manipulations from the beginning, but of the billions of photos taken since the beginning, probably 99 percent are unmanipulated, straight-out-of-the-camera family photos, cat photos, snapshots, etc. Few iPhone photos are post-processed, because that's not what iPhone photos are for. And it's true, as Tal said, that there may be a roaring expressway a few inches out of the landscape photo, but if the photo itself is unmanipulated, then its an image of what was in front of the camera. So: the default position of a photo is that it's unmanipulated. It always has been that, and in general, manipulations before Photoshop were self-disclosing.

Art photos may either be manipulated or unmanipulated. Either is equally acceptable.

However, if you present for sale a landscape photo that gives every appearance of being unmanipulated, which is the default state of out-of-camera photographs, and in fact you manipulated, but then essentially deny the manipulation, you're being unethical. You're lying. Painters essentially can't lie about the images in their works: the images are what they are, individual creations that spring from the minds of the artists. But photographers, because of the peculiar mechanical method of making a photo, and because of photography's history as an "objective" medium, can lie, and they do, and that behavior is unethical. It has nothing to do with whether a piece is art or not, or whether its been manipulated or not, it's whether the photographer is lying.

To make it brutally clear: If you are in the American southwest, and you take a photo of an arch, and then you uses Photoshop to bring in a separate moonrise, and place the moon in the arch, I have no problem, though I wouldn't buy the photo -- it'd just be another inane Photoshop idea. But if somebody asks, "Does this represent what actually happened out there?" and you say "Yes," then I do have a problem. If you represent the photograph as an image of a natural fact, you're being unethical, no matter how beautiful the object (the photograph) may be.    

Sure, the billions of family snaps and vacation pics are unedited.  Two things.  First, in the film era, all but professionals and hardcore enthusiasts had not the ability to edit images.  Now, with digital I'd venture that the percentage of edited images is much higher.  Second, I think, at least on this forum, we're talking about a higher level of photography than the family vacation snap taken with a Kodak Instamatic.

IPhone pictures not edited?  One word:  Instagram.  There are all manner of apps available for altering smartphone pictures and yes, those apps get heavy use.

The point with artistic photography is that it shouldn't matter.  It's art.  You like it, fine.  You don't like it, fine.  The manner of creation is immaterial.  The impressionistic style of photography doesn't, in any way, represent an objective reality.  It can be done with Photoshop or in camera.  Is one more ethical than the other?  It's the idea that all photography is supposed to represent some objective reality that is the problem.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2013, 06:28:19 AM by BobFisher » Logged
Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #234 on: June 09, 2013, 06:28:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Photo shopping destroys the credibility of everyone involved in photography.  Take your illustrations  and tell the world, "I couldn't have done it without Photoshop!."  Then the world will not presume that the rest of us are involved in the same fraud.  If the photograph was defective to start with, throw it away and retake it.  Learn photography and get it right the first time or call your product a "photoshop illustration" so the rest of us aren't damaged by incompetence and fraudulent practice.  Photo manipulation willfully and intentionally steals the effort from those who don't scam and defraud the world with fake  illustrations.  Publish the raw so the world at large can see what you've done or throw away your camera and work from stock photos just like the rest of the "real illustrators" do.  There is enough free stock out there to rip off for just about any "illustration" you want to produce.  Why bother with a camera at all?

Scato-Bob  gets no more slack on the scam scale.  I've got a new hobby - watching his posts for insult opportunities.

Ken Richmond




Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #235 on: June 09, 2013, 06:33:19 AM »
ReplyReply


Scato-Bob  gets no more slack on the scam scale.  I've got a new hobby - watching his posts for insult opportunities.

Ken Richmond

Oh goodie, I have a stalker.  Roll Eyes

"Studio Portrait - Hasselblad - Retouched/Photoshop Makeup"

Anyone want to take a guess where that quote came from?
Logged
Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #236 on: June 09, 2013, 06:41:26 AM »
ReplyReply

"The point with artistic photography is that it shouldn't matter.  It's art."

Hey Bob, give us one of your examples of art and show us how it's done.


Ken Richmond
Logged

Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #237 on: June 09, 2013, 06:43:17 AM »
ReplyReply

It's full disclosure Scato-Bob, nothing hidden.  NEVER!


Ken Richmond
Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #238 on: June 09, 2013, 06:43:34 AM »
ReplyReply

"The point with artistic photography is that it shouldn't matter.  It's art."

Hey Bob, give us one of your examples of art and show us how it's done.


Ken Richmond

Buy my book.
Logged
Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #239 on: June 09, 2013, 06:52:43 AM »
ReplyReply

"Buy my book". 

I will if and when I run out of toilet paper.

Ken Richmond
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad