Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The Ethics of Photo Manipulation - 3  (Read 13840 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« on: June 11, 2013, 11:46:47 AM »
ReplyReply

At last, a thread that realises when it's time to commit hari-kari!

Rob C
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2764


« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2013, 12:00:44 PM »
ReplyReply

BobFisher
Quote
"No one has answered the question I posed earlier of whether Le Gray was 'cheating'.  Does anyone even know who Le Gray was or what he did without resorting to Google?"

Actually...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=63950.msg516444#msg516444

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=76864.msg618544#msg618544

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=76072.msg608450#msg608450

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=67501.msg534087#msg534087


Quote
"Le Gray's seascapes, photographed on the beaches of Normandy and along France's Mediterranean coast, created an international sensation when they were first exhibited in London and Paris. At a time when camera exposures often lasted for several seconds, viewers were amazed by Le Gray's ability to freeze the motion of breaking waves, and the perfectly backlit clouds drifting above reinforced the feeling of instantaneity. That the clouds and waves were printed from two separate negatives remained the artist's secret during his lifetime. Although Le Gray never publicly acknowledged his method, he did leave some inadvertent clues in the pictures themselves: the same spectacular stormy sky looms above the horizon in at least three different seascapes, providing irrefutable evidence of Le Gray's canny manipulation."

p47 Faking it: Manipulated Photography Before Photoshop

Perhaps a good time to remember that the primary meaning of manipulate is "to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner", "to manage or utilize skillfully".
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2764


« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2013, 12:10:57 PM »
ReplyReply

But, on that very subject, I occasionally write photo articles for The Online Photographer...

In that article, you say "...and I pulled over to take a snapshot...if you ever wondered what the place really looks like."

What makes that snapshot "what the place really looks like"?

Is the experience of standing at the buttress behind the church very much like the experience of standing at a busy roadside?

Do we need to ask if you manipulated the camera viewpoint and focus to create that particular image? :-)
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2013, 12:45:45 PM »
ReplyReply


In this thread?  Has anyone addressed the question in this thread?  What went on in other discussions is irrelevant.  But OK, so one person knows who Le Gray is and about his methods.  But you still haven't answered the question of whether what he did was 'cheating'.  Or perhaps the bit below is supposed to address that? 


Quote
p47 Faking it: Manipulated Photography Before Photoshop

Perhaps a good time to remember that the primary meaning of manipulate is "to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner", "to manage or utilize skillfully".


Yes, I've also made my thoughts on these types of dictionary and wiktionary definitions known.  But to restate:  Stow the dictionary. 
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2764


« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2013, 12:56:23 PM »
ReplyReply

But to restate:  Stow the dictionary.

Stow your commands -- no one made you king.
Logged
petermfiore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510



WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2013, 01:22:58 PM »
ReplyReply

At last, a thread that realises when it's time to commit hari-kari!

Rob C

Would that be senior or junior?

Peter
Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2013, 01:32:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Stow your commands -- no one made you king.

Oh bloody hell.
Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1221


« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2013, 04:10:02 PM »
ReplyReply

There are too many pages on this topic to warrant reading them all, but consider what people have done with photography to try and prove the existence of UFOs. In many cases the photos are original but what they're of has been set up to look like something that it is not.
Logged
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 880


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2013, 05:02:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been following this discussion with interest and a sort of growing horror. It has become  a sort of obsessive vortex that drags me back. Is it like doing drugs? I wouldn't know.
I see that it has now caused LL to barf twice. With apologies to Chris S I just want to find out if restarting it once more causes the whole internet to collapse.
Logged

daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2013, 05:18:34 PM »
ReplyReply

...I just want to find out if restarting it once more causes the whole internet to collapse.

No, but it has prompted me to start a third kettle of popcorn, and my feet are beginning to swell from the salt.
Logged
Dale Villeponteaux
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 191



« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2013, 05:24:13 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm hoping the Deus ex Machina, in the person of Chris Sanderson, will descend again.
Logged

A modest man, with much to be modest about
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2013, 02:59:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm hoping the Deus ex Machina, in the person of Chris Sanderson, will descend again.


Second comings are seldom as good as the first.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2013, 05:19:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I think I'm the one who choked the thread to death.  My last post with accompanying jpgs has been "disappeared".

Ken Richmond
« Last Edit: June 12, 2013, 06:34:39 AM by Ken Richmond » Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2764


« Reply #13 on: June 12, 2013, 10:29:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic
Quote from: markd61
... The discussion about how much is OK seems irrelevant as it implies there is some virtue in minimal or no manipulation.
I am not sure what that virtue is...
That virtue is the essence of photography.

Presumably markd61 is still waiting for you to explain why minimal or no manipulation is a virtue in photography; and to regale him with tales of photograms, pinhole cameras and contact printing.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2013, 01:19:10 PM by Isaac » Logged
VidJa
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2013, 04:49:01 PM »
ReplyReply

who cares, do you believe anything at all that is shown? it's a bless to be ignorant.

Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2764


« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2013, 02:08:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Jay -- May 31, 2013, 04:57:27 AM
Well, about a year ago a very similar debate was had in response to an article posted by Alain Briot and his philosophy toward photography and art.

In "The Ethics of Photo Manipulation" Charles Johnson explicitly referred to Alain Briot’s article, “Ansel Adams Moves” and “Alain Briot Moves” so the debate is similar.

It's a little surprising that none of us took-up Alain Briot’s language to say that obviously “Ansel Adams Moves” are legitimate in an “Ansel Adams Photography Game” and “Alain Briot Moves” are legitimate in an “Alain Briot Photography Game” and the arguing is mostly about primacy -- is there just one legitmate “Photography Game” or are there many?


Quote from: John Camp -- May 29, 2013, 06:54:56 PM
The ethical problem occurs when a photograph is substantively altered, but the person doing the manipulation attempts to retain its character as a photograph, and then either maintains that it is am image taken directly from a camera, or allows the viewer to believe that. (Belief is always the default, because...

Conflating "its character as a photograph" with "taken directly from a camera" simply assumes the primacy of a particular “Photography Game”.

The salient characteristic of a photograph is that it "looks so real" like a mirror image; and like a mirror image that also means selective and distorted.


Quote from: Tony Jay -- May 31, 2013, 04:57:27 AM
However, Alain, explicitly and obviously, through his artists statement, informs viewers and buyers that his images may well be purely the result of his imagination and artistic ability. ... I confess to respecting the views advanced without really comprehending why an open disclosure of one's artistic philosophy could not be given to viewers and buyers as the case may be.

Open disclosure for the “Alain Briot Photography Game” but not for the “Ansel Adams Photography Game”?
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #16 on: June 15, 2013, 02:28:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I look at images as art (appart from journalistic ones).

I either like them or I don't.  I do not ask, directly, if they are the ACTUAL scene.  If they are "overcooked", I probably will not like them....not because of the overprocessing, but because I PERSONALLY do not like that look...usually.

Why does it need to be any more than personal taste?
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #17 on: June 15, 2013, 05:21:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Do you think that shows more than absence of curiosity? :-)

Not when viewing as art.
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #18 on: June 15, 2013, 06:44:12 PM »
ReplyReply

If you only ask - like them or don't - maybe that's viewing them as wallpaper :-)

Yeah...like in a museum.

What a silly statement you make.
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #19 on: June 15, 2013, 08:01:00 PM »
ReplyReply

If you only ask - like or don't like - yeah, that's viewing museum exhibits as wallpaper.

Ignored...
Logged

John
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad