Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The Ethics of Photo Manipulation - 3  (Read 10890 times)
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #40 on: June 20, 2013, 09:01:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Was the decision made to show an image to other before or after the editing started?  If before then the intent to deceive could well have occurred before showing the image to others.
Good point. No actual deceit would occur, but the bad intention might be morally questionable. I believe traditional moral philosophy has something to say about this issue, particularly in the context of sexual fantasy   Wink.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #41 on: June 20, 2013, 09:54:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess the reason why discussions such as this could go on forever without resolution or conclusion, is because these two concepts of aesthetcs and ethics, and their conflicts, are woven into the fabric of our society at every level.

Would anyone question whether or not it is ethical for a lady to wear make-up in such a way as to give the impression she is healthier and/or more attractive than she really is?  Grin
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #42 on: June 20, 2013, 10:29:48 PM »
ReplyReply

There's no deception.  You can tell the woman is wearing makeup.

The better question would probably be about the ethics of reshaping a woman's body for a magazine. 
Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #43 on: June 20, 2013, 11:00:40 PM »
ReplyReply

You can tell the woman is wearing makeup.
Depends how skilled she is at putting it on. The point for me would rather be that in the context of sexual selection, you can assume she is making the best of herself, and you know that such a thing as makeup is available, so you...enjoy the view.

But then....should you assume, mutatis mutandis, that photographers also will be making the best of themselves and such a thing as photoshop is available, so you should enjoy the view? Up to a point, yes. And back we go to where that point lies.
Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #44 on: June 21, 2013, 06:06:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Not sure the phrase mutatis mutandis works in the context.  In fact, quite sure it doesn't, but that aside....

If the general premise is accepted then why does there need to be a cross-over point?  If the premise is accepted that - and I'll add the qualifier as it relates to artistic photography -a tool like Photoshop is akin to a woman applying makeup then (and ignoring 'lipstick on a pig' scenarios, to continue the theme) why should it matter how much is done?

Further, I don't agree with the premise.  A woman applying makeup can radically change her appearance and give a completely unrealistic sense of her beauty that is only discovered when the gunk is removed.  The woman, in effect, is not what we thought she was and, in applying makeup, even though we may know it's been done, has deceived the viewer and presented a false vision of herself.
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #45 on: June 21, 2013, 08:58:08 AM »
ReplyReply


Further, I don't agree with the premise.  A woman applying makeup can radically change her appearance and give a completely unrealistic sense of her beauty that is only discovered when the gunk is removed.  The woman, in effect, is not what we thought she was and, in applying makeup, even though we may know it's been done, has deceived the viewer and presented a false vision of herself.

...but when it is done right isn't it great to look at   Smiley

I'm happily married, so am not gonna be there when the "gunk" is removed.....don't disillusion me...  Cheesy
Logged

John
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2347


« Reply #46 on: June 21, 2013, 10:23:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I, for example, won't do anything in with digital photography/editing that I couldn't do with film.  That's my personal ethic.  So I won't, for example, swap a sky from one image and mask it into another.

When you say "that I couldn't do with film" do mean you won't do with digital what you lacked the skill to do with film?

When you say "That's my personal ethic" do you wish that to seem more than That's my habit?


not what we thought she was

Finally! A photograph may not be what we thought it was.
Which is to say, we were wrong (and we don't usually like that, unless we get the joke).

"The only kind of photography that would be tolerated in the near future, would be that class that expressed the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." (1897)

The only kind of photography that seems to exist is selective and distorted, like our experience of the world.
If we regard a photograph as "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" then we'll not be deceived, we'll just be wrong.
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #47 on: June 21, 2013, 11:00:22 AM »
ReplyReply

When you say "that I couldn't do with film" do mean you won't do with digital what you lacked the skill to do with film?

I meant that couldn't be done with film, as far as I know.  If there were something that I couldn't do with film because I didn't have the skill, I have no problem doing it with digital.

Quote
When you say "That's my personal ethic" do you wish that to seem more than That's my habit?

Stop trying to fuck with people's words.  You're not good at it.  I meant what I said.

Quote
Finally!  A photograph may not be what we thought it was.

What great discovery do you think has been made.  Very few people in this discussion, over three separate threads, have said a photograph is absolutely what we think it is.  Very few people have agreed that a photograph is ever completely objective.   

Quote
Which is to say, we were wrong.

Who was wrong?  You?  Don't lump others into your issues.

Quote
"The only kind of photography that would be tolerated in the near future, would be that class that expressed the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." (1897)

If you're going to quote someone then have the good sense to properly attribute the quote.

Quote
The only kind of photography that seems to exist is selective and distorted, like our experience of the world.
If we regard a photograph as "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" then we'll not be deceived, we'll just be wrong.

Again, very few people in this discussion hold that viewpoint.  What point are you trying to make? 
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2347


« Reply #48 on: June 21, 2013, 12:14:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I meant that couldn't be done with film, as far as I know.

In that case, why do you give as an example -- "So I won't, for example, swap a sky from one image and mask it into another." -- something that Le Gray accomplished before film ?


Who was wrong?  You?  Don't lump others into your issues.

When a photograph is not what you thought it was -- you were wrong.
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #49 on: June 21, 2013, 01:21:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Bob...

Don't bother responding.  He is toying with you and most others he responds to....mostly by twisting words.  I do not believe that there is any direction to his posts.
Logged

John
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #50 on: June 21, 2013, 01:53:56 PM »
ReplyReply

In that case, why do you give as an example -- "So I won't, for example, swap a sky from one image and mask it into another." -- something that Le Gray accomplished before film ?

Because that's not what Le Gray did.  He would take images of the same scene at different exposures.  That's easy.  Swapping a completely different sky from another image.... not so much.  Someone with the talent of, say, Uelsmann could probably do it but it's not something that is generally considered doable with film.  Very much more difficult with colour neg and slide film than b&w as well.


Quote
When a photograph is not what you thought it was -- you were wrong.

Yeah, whatever.  I'm bored with you.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2347


« Reply #51 on: June 21, 2013, 02:13:40 PM »
ReplyReply

In that case, why do you give as an example -- "So I won't, for example, swap a sky from one image and mask it into another." -- something that Le Gray accomplished before film ?

Because that's not what Le Gray did.  He would take images of the same scene at different exposures.  That's easy.  Swapping a completely different sky from another image.... not so much.

Same sky used with 3 different seascapes:

Quote
"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

(Google Books sometimes shows the photos as well as a text snippet so try scrolling down page to see the 3 photos.)
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 03:30:04 PM by Isaac » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #52 on: June 21, 2013, 09:51:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Because that's not what Le Gray did.  He would take images of the same scene at different exposures.  That's easy.  Swapping a completely different sky from another image.... not so much.  Someone with the talent of, say, Uelsmann could probably do it but it's not something that is generally considered doable with film.  Very much more difficult with colour neg and slide film than b&w as well.

Bob,
I think you should accept that Isaac is right. I experienced this swapping of skies in connection with a very old photograph I found in my late father's collection of photographic prints. The print was from the late 19th century photographer Frank Meadow Sutcliffe. I tried to buy a larger print from the Sutcliffe Gallery in the U.K. but was surprised to find that the image they were offering, clearly identifiable as the same shot because the foreground was identical, had a different sky.

I was surprised to learn that skilled photographers using old-fashioned darkroom techniques were able to swap skies in an image as far back as that.

Just to check that I haven't got this wrong, I did an internet search and came across the following article from Amateur Photographer:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/how-to/icons-of-photography/534602/frank-meadow-sutcliffe-1853-1941-iconic-photographer

In it you will find the following comment:

Quote
"Image: ‘Dock End, Whitby’, 1880. Sky tones couldn’t be captured using the wet-plate process, so Sutcliffe expertly print in clouds from another negative"


Since I have noticed in another thread that you have begun appealing to God to confirm your views, perhaps you should pay attention to a particularly relevant prayer, known as the Serenity Prayer.  Grin

God, give me grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.

Amen!
Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #53 on: June 22, 2013, 03:58:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Not sure the phrase mutatis mutandis works in the context.  In fact, quite sure it doesn't, but that aside....
I understand the phrase to mean "acknowledging and setting aside the differences". In the context, what it is doing is setting aside the irrelevant differences between the two sides of the analogy and focusing only on the useful points of comparison. What doesn't work? Or, I guess, what is wrong with my understanding of the meaning of the phrase?
Logged

kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #54 on: June 22, 2013, 04:13:51 AM »
ReplyReply

If the premise is accepted that ... a tool like Photoshop is akin to a woman applying makeup then ... why should it matter how much is done?

I would approach both sides of the comparison from the perspective of the viewer. There is a spectrum of possible responses, in both cases. At one end, it doesn't matter - you just enjoy what you see. At the other, you can't really enjoy it without in some way believing in it, so your enjoyment is liable to be undermined by doubt (given your knowledge of the existence of photoshop and makeup), and you get upset when you discover there has been what you regard as  inappropriate manipulation. My personal response is close to the "enjoy what you see" end, but I have discovered, through this thread, that other people respond very differently.

(Modified to add: ...and been persuaded of the wisdom of the serenity prayer cited by Ray in relation to the differences between my response and theirs).
« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 05:30:39 AM by kencameron » Logged

kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #55 on: June 22, 2013, 04:14:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Further, I don't agree with the premise.  A woman applying makeup can radically change her appearance and give a completely unrealistic sense of her beauty that is only discovered when the gunk is removed.  The woman, in effect, is not what we thought she was and, in applying makeup, even though we may know it's been done, has deceived the viewer and presented a false vision of herself.
And a photographer can't do this to a landscape with photoshop?

(modified to add: and I think you may now be overestimating what can be done with makeup, and sounding like a father of the church denouncing the daughters of eve  Wink)
« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 04:28:29 AM by kencameron » Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #56 on: June 22, 2013, 06:44:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Bob,
I think you should accept that Isaac is right. I experienced this swapping of skies in connection with a very old photograph I found in my late father's collection of photographic prints. The print was from the late 19th century photographer Frank Meadow Sutcliffe. I tried to buy a larger print from the Sutcliffe Gallery in the U.K. but was surprised to find that the image they were offering, clearly identifiable as the same shot because the foreground was identical, had a different sky.

I was surprised to learn that skilled photographers using old-fashioned darkroom techniques were able to swap skies in an image as far back as that.

Just to check that I haven't got this wrong, I did an internet search and came across the following article from Amateur Photographer:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/how-to/icons-of-photography/534602/frank-meadow-sutcliffe-1853-1941-iconic-photographer

In it you will find the following comment:


Since I have noticed in another thread that you have begun appealing to God to confirm your views, perhaps you should pay attention to a particularly relevant prayer, known as the Serenity Prayer.  Grin

God, give me grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.

Amen!

I have no problem acknowledging that he's right.  I didn't know Le Gray did that.  But.... you knew there'd be a 'but', right.... I wasn't thinking of the type of scene as in the examples.  I was thinking of more complex skylines, not flat horizon water scenes.  I'll cop to my thinking not being broad enough.  So I used a less than stellar example to illustrate my point.  It doesn't change the essence of the point I was making that we all have a personal ethic that may differ from a more generally accepted standard.

Ken, did you really need three separate responses?  Your understanding and mine of the term mutatis mutandis are different.  My understanding of it is that it means 'changing only that which needs to change', not setting aside differences.

Of course people have differing views on the use of Photoshop.  That's not in dispute.  But it doesn't address the point that I raised.  And no, I'm not overstating what can be done with makeup.  Not at all.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2347


« Reply #57 on: June 22, 2013, 11:19:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I have no problem acknowledging that he's right.  I didn't know Le Gray did that.  But.... you knew there'd be a 'but', right.... I wasn't thinking of the type of scene as in the examples.  I was thinking of more complex skylines, not flat horizon water scenes.  I'll cop to my thinking not being broad enough.  So I used a less than stellar example to illustrate my point.

["Because that's not what Le Gray did."]

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so."

Apparently Gustave Le Gray was most famous for his seascapes, I think we can see why.


It doesn't change the essence of the point I was making that we all have a personal ethic that may differ from a more generally accepted standard.

It seems to differ by being an arbitrary rule unassociated with what we ordinarily describe as ethics :-)

« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 11:22:16 AM by Isaac » Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5018



WWW
« Reply #58 on: June 22, 2013, 11:54:40 AM »
ReplyReply

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

Rob C

No such luck, Rob. Perhaps time for you to kill it? I know you meant well by reviving it, but, as you know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I know it would be a futile attempt, as Isaac will surely resurrect it in its 4th incarnation, and then nobody but him, moderator or the forum software's puke-withholding capacity would be able to shut it down.

Wink
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 02:20:16 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #59 on: June 23, 2013, 03:21:03 AM »
ReplyReply

No such luck, Rob. Perhaps time for you to kill it? I know you meant well by reviving it, but, as you know, road to hell is paved to good intentions.

I know it would be a futile attempt, as Isaac will surely resurrect it in its 4th incarnation, and then nobody but him, moderator or the forum software's puke-withholding capacity would be able to shut it down.

Wink


I know, I know, but the problem is this: when  is the right moment? I hate the fact that it ends up being little more than a means of facilitating someone to the last word, especially if it's going to be mine. Not cricket.

Rob C
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad