Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The Ethics of Photo Manipulation - 3  (Read 15415 times)
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #100 on: June 27, 2013, 06:00:37 AM »
ReplyReply

And yet, in this case, Google and Wikipedia will suffice.

No, not really.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2881


« Reply #101 on: June 27, 2013, 07:08:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Does it explain the Wind Curtains image as well?  I tried to view that gallery but his website is so messed up that viewing the images is quite difficult.

homepage / portfolio / Horse Vision - gallery
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #102 on: June 27, 2013, 09:32:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, I know how to navigate a website.  What I'm saying is that his galleries don't work well so viewing images is difficult. 
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2881


« Reply #103 on: June 28, 2013, 01:12:23 AM »
ReplyReply

The first image in that gallery provides the answer to your question.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2881


« Reply #104 on: July 02, 2013, 12:12:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan is arguing, from the very beginning of this thread, that, unless you specifically say the opposite, presenting simply a photograph fundamentally presupposes that it is realistic. So, in my world, no need to label a realistically-looking photograph as realistic. It is so by the very definition of photography (well, at least for us who subscribe to this point of view).


:-)

Also, Slobodan is arguing that some arbitrary non-realistic "effects" do not deceive.

Also, Slobodan is arguing that other arbitrary non-realistic "effects" do deceive.

Also, Slobodan is arguing for rules that separate the one from the other: extreme non-realistic "effects" are "obvious" so do not deceive, and other non-realistic "effects" are widely understood so do not deceive.


1) Obviously "lens effects" range from extreme to mild, so claiming that a Fish-Eye lens is too obvious to deceive simply ignores the tricks photographers play with less extreme wide-angle and telephoto lenses.

Obviously photographers learn how different lenses effect our perception of depth in a photo -- it's something that has to be explained in every Beginning Photography book; it isn't something non-photographers learn or understand.

Those "lens effects" are not-obvious and not-learned by non-photographers; so, if applied fairly, Slobodan's rules should lead us to conclude that "lens effects" deceive.


2) Slobodan provided an example of a non-realistic "effect" which he considered broke his rule -- not "obvious".

However the distortion is childs-play obvious -- dry sand castles won't hold such an extreme angle -- so, if applied fairly, Slobodan's rules should lead us to conclude that Wind Draperies does not deceive.

Slobodan is being capricious in the way he applies his rules.


3) When Slobodan presupposes photographs to be thoroughly realistic by definition, he ignores the practice of photography both in the past and the present.

"Realism is a special effect like any other, and the sooner we realize as much, the better off we'll be; the decrees of photo editors—no post-processing!—only serve to shore up a faith in photographic evidence that was never justified to begin with."
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6026


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #105 on: July 02, 2013, 12:23:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan will let you, unavoidably, to have the last word on this.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad