Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Rob C on June 11, 2013, 12:46:47 pm
-
At last, a thread that realises when it's time to commit hari-kari!
Rob C
-
BobFisher
"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
"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 (http://books.google.com/books?id=nGvTg_HC32YC)
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".
-
But, on that very subject, I occasionally write photo articles for The Online Photographer (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/12/rancho-de-taos.html)...
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? :-)
-
BobFisher
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
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?
p47 Faking it: Manipulated Photography Before Photoshop (http://books.google.com/books?id=nGvTg_HC32YC)
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.
-
But to restate: Stow the dictionary.
Stow your commands -- no one made you king.
-
At last, a thread that realises when it's time to commit hari-kari!
Rob C
Would that be senior or junior?
Peter
-
Stow your commands -- no one made you king.
Oh bloody hell.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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.
-
I'm hoping the Deus ex Machina, in the person of Chris Sanderson, will descend again.
-
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
-
I think I'm the one who choked the thread to death. My last post with accompanying jpgs has been "disappeared".
Ken Richmond
-
... 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.
-
who cares, do you believe anything at all that is shown? it's a bless to be ignorant.
-
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?
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.
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”?
-
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?
-
Do you think that shows more than absence of curiosity? :-)
Not when viewing as art.
-
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.
-
If you only ask - like or don't like - yeah, that's viewing museum exhibits as wallpaper.
Ignored...
-
Ah! Absence of curiosity.
Not interested in your useless baiting tactics.
-
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.
When you tell me that you're not curious about the images you look at, I believe you -- you know better than me that you're not curious.
-
Not when viewing as art.
There already is a program that generates beautiful pictures.
You can choose the character like urban, love, romance, nature, birds, underwater, alien worlds you name it.
Really mid-blowing experience is setting 30 frames per minute which is the maximum the last version can do.
If you can’t find it’s probably sold out. But looking through a good kaleidoscope can keep you alright for a while as far as the aesthetic appreciation goes ;)
Aesthetics (like Art) without a connection is infantile or simply disconnected (insert the diagnosis).
A photograph has another connection in that sense that without a direct connection (the topic and questions about it possibly) to the seen is outside that term.
One can of course add an adjective and specify in case it’s suitable etc. That is naturally happening because people mostly like to share and talk about their photography. The bottom line is ‘Whatever keeps you real happy’. which can vary very much as with everything else. And if you have issues in competitions you need to adjust.
My guess would be that after a yearlong massage with the kaleidoscope many people can actually find themselves thrilled by seeing a photograph. Be it quite a simple one or a snapshot. That sort of thing can also happen to aesthetics.
Hynek
-
I sort of lost the will to live on the various threads in this discussion about photo-manipulation, so I'm not sure who believes what anymore, However I did read this earlier which was from the late Eddy Sethna
http://www.monolandscapes.talktalk.net/creativity.htm
An interesting take on the subject of manipulation.
Jim
-
Quite a good article worth a read.
The debate will drag on, but we all make our own choices on this one. Less is more for me and probably always will be.
-
Less is more for me and probably always will be.
That's a question of aesthetics (minimalist Mies), not a question of ethics :-)
-
I'm not changing my view on this, I respect how others feel, but I think we've thrashed this one to death.
We each take the path we want to, that is our own unique one and it's a different journey for everyone.
-
I don't wish you to change your preferred aesthetic; I'd just like to see how you justify turning that aesthetic into an ethic.
-
Well that's my point, I can do what I like and so can you. If you feel it's aesthetic then fine I'm happy for you, I feel it's an ethical point but that's my own view.
So agree to disagree and lets move on.
I'm not going to change how I feel to please anyone, nor do I have to justify anything to anyone.
They're my photos, I do as I want...as does everyone else with their own work.
Otherwise we'll simply end up like one of those tedious political discussions..nobody changes their view, mostly arguments and ultimately it's quite pointless.
And no it's not about being a purist or a minimalist either. People tend to try to pigeon-hole opinions into neat tidy spaces, life isn't like that..neither is photography!
-
... how you justify turning that aesthetic into an ethic.
Easy.
As we move on the continuum from your preferred meaning of the word "manipulation" (as "skillful use of tools") toward more common understanding of the word (i.e., "deceit"), we are moving from aesthetic to ethic.
-
... nor do I have to justify anything to anyone.
It would be interesting if you could.
As you wish.
-
As we move on the continuum from your preferred meaning of the word "manipulation" (as "skillful use of tools") toward more common understanding of the word (i.e., "deceit"), we are moving from aesthetic to ethic.
Nice at first reading, but doesn't survive examination. You are merely pointing to the difference between two understandings of the meaning of a word. This doesn't provide a basis for arguing that certain kinds of post-processing are unethical. Lying (explicitly or implicitly) about what you have done is unethical. What you do is a matter of taste.
-
... This doesn't provide a basis for arguing that certain kinds of post-processing are unethical...
If deceit is ethical, than you are correct.
-
And if deceit is unethical, then he is correct.
"You are merely pointing to the difference between two understandings of the meaning of a word. This doesn't provide a basis for arguing that certain kinds of post-processing are unethical."
-
Gee, Isaac, where would this forum be without your superior semantic expertise!
-
What Barry is describing and is being ascribed by others as an aesthetic is also his personal ethic. There is such a thing as a personal ethic that may be more or less restrictive than others, or as compared to an accepted norm. 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. That's more restrictive than some.
-
Nice at first reading, but doesn't survive examination. You are merely pointing to the difference between two understandings of the meaning of a word. This doesn't provide a basis for arguing that certain kinds of post-processing are unethical. Lying (explicitly or implicitly) about what you have done is unethical. What you do is a matter of taste.
Let me simplify it:
1. Processing (manipulation) as "skillful use of tools" = aesthetic (taste)
2. Processing (manipulation) with the intention to deceive = ethics
Thus certain kinds of post-processing are unethical, even it can be utterly aesthetic (pleasing).
-
1. Photographing (manipulation) as "skillful use of tools" = aesthetic (taste)
2. Photographing (manipulation) with the intention to deceive = ethics
Thus certain kinds of photographing are unethical, even it can be utterly aesthetic (pleasing).
-
...certain kinds of post-processing are unethical, even it can be utterly aesthetic (pleasing).
Well - yes, but only if and when when someone else sees the image and is deceived by it. Let me try to simplify.
1. Nothing I do to my own images with my own copy of photoshop in my own home can ever be unethical because it is deceitful. There is no-one there to be deceived. It may of course be inept, etcetera, but that is a different matter.
2. Once I show the image to even one other person, the possibility of deceit arises, in relation to pretty much all post-processing, including, I suggest, the versions of it that you and others on your side of the argument happen to be comfortable with. If the viewer doesn't understand that, and how, the image has been altered, and you are in any way complicit in that "misunderstanding", you are being unethical. This applies as much to dodging and burning as it does to large-scale cloning.
3. The difficulty arises in relation to how and when photographers might be complicit in such misunderstandings, or, to put it differently, what it is reasonable to assume in relation to published photographs not subject to explicit special conditions such as in photojournalism or competitions. I would want to know what people actually assume, and would guess that they do see a difference between dodging and burning (no surprise finding out it has happened) and large-scale cloning (feeling conned).
4. To summarise - postprocessing to deceive is unethical, but if the viewer knows exactly what you have done, the only judgement left for them to make is aesthetic.
-
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.
-
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 ;).
-
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? ;D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :)
I'm happily married, so am not gonna be there when the "gunk" is removed.....don't disillusion me... :D
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
Which is to say, we were wrong.
Who was wrong? You? Don't lump others into your issues.
"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.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
When a photograph is not what you thought it was -- you were wrong.
Yeah, whatever. I'm bored with you.
-
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:
"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 (http://books.google.com/books?id=nGvTg_HC32YC&lpg=PA22&ots=L2mYNVIZO3&dq=%22the%20same%20spectacular%20stormy%20sky%20looms%20above%20the%20horizon%20in%20at%20least%20three%20different%20seascapes%2C%20providing%20irrefutable%20evidence%20of%20Le%20Gray's%20canny%20manipulation.%22&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q=%22the%20same%20spectacular%20stormy%20sky%20looms%20above%20the%20horizon%20in%20at%20least%20three%20different%20seascapes,%20providing%20irrefutable%20evidence%20of%20Le%20Gray's%20canny%20manipulation.%22&f=false)
(Google Books sometimes shows the photos as well as a text snippet so try scrolling down page to see the 3 photos.)
-
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:
"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. ;D
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!
-
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?
-
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).
-
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 ;))
-
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. ;D
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.
-
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 :-)
-
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.
;)
-
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.
;)
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
-
Ken, did you really need three separate responses?
No, I certainly didn't, but I sometimes prefer to do it that way. Less faff combining multiple quotations, and it separates out the strands of the argument. Now that I know it irks you, Bob, I will try to avoid it in future responses to your posts.
On the substance, it does seem that we may all be all done.
-
It's not a matter that it irks me, Ken. It just makes reading continuity less fluid.
-
Whilst we're on the subject of "kiss and tell" as in how much processing is done. Let's have a practical example of that.
So here we go.
Basically not a lot, an adjustment to WB, and tonal curve and that's about it folks. No layers, no selective editing at a pixel level.
And the other example is slightly earlier in the day when the sky was overcast.
Now you have a choice, sit at home playing around for hours on your mac/pc to try to get that golden hour look, or read the light and simply take the pictures when the light is "nice"
I know which I prefer.
-
I know which I prefer.
No doubt.
However, just from the title, Alfred Paterson was more to the point when he took as his subject "Is Retouching Immoral" in Photography Quarterly, April 1890.
-
A good example for debate when (if) processing/manipulation of a landscape image crosses the line:
http://www.myamazingearth.com/2012/12/wind-cathedral-namibia/
-
Wind Draperies - Namibia (http://www.paulgodard.com/Admin/zViewItem.php?Item=xImage&RECORD_KEY%28NavList%29=Image_ID&Image_ID%28NavList%29=PG_106110&SortOrder=TotalStars+desc%2C+Image_ID+desc&SearchCriteria=%28Mark_Active+%3E+0%29+%26%26+%28FIND_IN_SET%28ShortCodeOrgan%2C%27%2CPG%2C%27%29+%26%26+Mark_IsImage+%3E+0%29+%26%26+%28TotalStars+%3E+4%29+%26%26+%28Mark_Private+%3C+2%29+%26%26+%281%29) (on Paul Godard's website)
Slobodan, what would you like to say about that photo?
-
... Slobodan, what would you like to say about that photo?
I thought I already said it: a good example for debate. I even left the option ("if") that it is not manipulated. But if it is, then you know my position: it deceives, thus crosses the line.
-
What do you think the photo shows?
I'm not sure I know, there seems to be some grayish talus.
-
Whilst we're on the subject of "kiss and tell" as in how much processing is done. Let's have a practical example of that.
So here we go.
Basically not a lot, an adjustment to WB, and tonal curve and that's about it folks. No layers, no selective editing at a pixel level.
And the other example is slightly earlier in the day when the sky was overcast.
Now you have a choice, sit at home playing around for hours on your mac/pc to try to get that golden hour look, or read the light and simply take the pictures when the light is "nice"
I know which I prefer.
Waiting for the light to be "nice" might mean a lot more hours sitting around than processing. I try to get the best image out of camera and I also like photoshopping an image to suit my vision. When I do so I certainly don't worry about anyone else's thoughts about "crossing a line". It is my image and my vision of the final output that is what I think about. When I do show my final vision I have rarely been accused of going over the top.
-
Quote barryfitzgerald. Reply #62
Basically not a lot, an adjustment to WB, and tonal curve and that's about it folks. No layers, no selective editing at a pixel level.
Unquote.
Why is it that some photographers boast about how little they process an image? Is it to try and "prove" how good they are when setting the parameters in camera? Setting the parameters in processing is also about how good they are imo and if layers and selective editing means a "better" output then so be it. :)
-
A good example for debate when (if) processing/manipulation of a landscape image crosses the line:
http://www.myamazingearth.com/2012/12/wind-cathedral-namibia/
There seems to be evidence that it's manipulated. Does Goddard disclose any manipulation? It seems not. Not that I can find, anyway. Does it matter? Depends on the intended purpose. As art, no. As documentary, yes.
-
Sossusvlei, Namibia (http://www.paulgodard.com/Admin/zViewItem.php?Item=xImage&RECORD_KEY%28NavList%29=Image_ID&Image_ID%28NavList%29=PG_123311&SortOrder=TotalStars+desc%2C+Image_ID+desc&SearchCriteria=%28Mark_Active+%3E+0%29+%26%26+%28FIND_IN_SET%28ShortCodeOrgan%2C%27%2CPG%2C%27%29+%26%26+Mark_IsImage+%3E+0%29+%26%26+%28TotalStars+%3E+4%29+%26%26+%28Mark_Private+%3C+2%29+%26%26+%281%29) - Aug 2011
So, we're looking at (famous) sand dunes.
The sinuous line of the crests hinted at sand dunes; but the angle of repose seems too extreme for loose sand. The light areas are alkali flats, and the gray areas are probably desert plants.
-
But if it is, then you know my position: it deceives, thus crosses the line.
In what way did the photo actually deceive you?
"Wind Draperies" seems an appropriate title to me, and after a little thought I think I understand what the photo shows -- so in what way does the photo deceive?
-
In what way did the photo actually deceive you?...
By making me think those are real, natural forms? As you said: "the angle of repose seems too extreme for loose sand." The whole image rather looks like being compressed, elongated in post-processing.
-
By making me think those are real, natural forms? As you said: "the angle of repose seems too extreme for loose sand." The whole image rather looks like being compressed, elongated in post-processing.
Or simply fish-eye, not fish-y. Is it then still deception?
(I don't actually know whether it is fish-eye, but could well be).
-
By making me think those are real, natural forms?
As far as I know; those are real, natural forms.
Just as real as you are when we see your reflection in a fairground mirror.
While I've seen numerous examples of Big Stoppers doing wonders on water (if you like that effect, of course)...
Why didn't you claim that you were deceived into thinking that the ocean was without waves, and the raging torrent a milky flow?
-
As far as I know; those are real, natural forms.
Just as real as you are when we see your reflection in a fairground mirror.
The difference is that those who see the fairground mirror reflection definitely know it is so twisted that it can not be real, so no deception there. Just like photography, everyone expects a mirror to reflect reality. The real deception with mirrors is, however, in some department store dressing rooms, which distort just so, and in such a flattering way (making us look thinner) that we subconsciously accept it as real. Now, that's a deception with mirrors.
Why didn't you claim that you were deceived into thinking that the ocean was without waves, and the raging torrent a milky flow?
Because 1. Calm ocean does exist 2. We are culturally conditioned to understand that camera captures certain moving objects as blurred 3. It is too obvious that a filter/trick was used, thus no deception (for the same reason we do not consider b&w photography deceptive)
For the same reason Jerry Uelsmann isn't deceptive: it is too obvious it is a montage.
-
Or simply fish-eye, not fish-y. Is it then still deception?
(I don't actually know whether it is fish-eye, but could well be).
Isaac's link in post #71 is done with a fish-eye... My OP wasn't.
-
Isaac's link in post #71 is done with a fish-eye... My OP wasn't.
The link in #71 says 200mm in the specs, so I presume it is some kind of pano stitch,
the other image says 86mm, but might also be a stitch of course...
-
The difference is that those who see the fairground mirror reflection definitely know it is so twisted that it can not be real, so no deception there.
The twisted reflection is a "real" image and no reflection is the "real" object.
The real deception with mirrors is...
The real deception with mirrors is that they show a mirror world where left-is-right and right-is-left.
1. Calm ocean does exist
In that case, you shouldn't claim that you were being deceived when shown a photograph from which a person's image had been removed, or shown a photograph to which a person's image had been added.
After all, situations did exist where that person was not present, and situations did exist where that person was present.
2. We are culturally conditioned to understand that camera captures certain moving objects as blurred
So Big Stopper images do deceive people unfamiliar with the motion-blur that has become accepted in this culture over the last 30 years ?
3. It is too obvious that a filter/trick was used, thus no deception
It's only obvious to those who've already been shown the trick -- after all, "Calm ocean does exist".
What's obvious to a photographer is not necessarily obvious to others.
For example, if how different lenses effect our perception of depth in a photo was generally obvious, that would not need to be explained in every Beginning Photography book.
-
Does Goddard disclose any manipulation? It seems not. Not that I can find, anyway.
"Horse Vision -- Surreal landscapes as seen through the eyes of a horse (http://www.paulgodard.com/portfolio.html)."
-
"Horse Vision -- Surreal landscapes as seen through the eyes of a horse (http://www.paulgodard.com/portfolio.html)."
There you go!
If that description went with the work, no deception and all is good. I would actually enjoy seeing it from a horse's perspective (if true). Or, if the general public got used to "horse view" over the years (as they have for fish-eye view), no problem whatsoever.
-
If that description went with the work...
If people linked to the image on the photographer's website instead of websites that had copied the image...
Or, if the general public got used to "horse view" over the years... no problem whatsoever.
Obviously to do so over the years, would mean years and years of not being used to "horse view" and having people shout -- we're being deceived -- just because a photograph was not what they thought it was.
"No photograph should need a caption, but every photograph must have one (http://books.google.com/books?id=Ggk_lMRquuIC&lpg=SA2-PA3&ots=kRv90-cte5&dq=%22no%20photograph%20should%20need%20a%20caption.%22&pg=SA2-PA4#v=onepage&q=%22No%20photograph%20should%20need%20a%20caption,%20but%20every%20photograph%20must%20have%20one.%22%22&f=false)" is the norm for photojournalism -- that doesn't make it the norm for photography.
-
If people linked to the image on the photographer's website instead of websites that had copied the image...
Oh, come on, Isaac, you linked twice (post #65 and #71) to the page which did not contain any explanation.
... years and years of not being used to "horse view" and having people shout -- we're being deceived...
And that's why, during those "years and years" there was a caption educating people it was a fish-eye (or horse-eye). Then again, in case of a fish-eye, especially the circular one, nobody felt deceived even without a caption (intrigued, yes), as it was so obvious it was a special effect.
The problem with the originally linked photo is that it is, just like department store mirrors, distorted just so that it leaves us on the verge of wondering if we shall be in awe from mother nature, or ask for explanation (in case of department store mirrors, most of us choose to believe it is mother nature ;))
-
If people linked to the image on the photographer's website instead of websites that had copied the image...
That explains one of the images. 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.
Aside from that, it raises the question of whether a viewer should be required to look deep into a photographer's website for 'evidence' of manipulation or whether it should be more easily available. Same question Slobodan raises.
As I said earlier, in this realm - art - it doesn't matter. Do whatever you like. But if he tried to pass the image off as an 'authentic' representation of the scene for documentary or other 'record' purposes then that would be problematic.
-
But if he tried to pass the image off as an 'authentic' representation of the scene for documentary or other 'record' purposes then that would be problematic.
So far Slobodan has not pointed to anything that would suggest Paul Godard presented those photographs as reportage or presented himself as a photojournalist.
However, I think Slobodan is arguing about a different situation where a photograph has not been labelled as "for documentary or other 'record' purposes" (a situation where a photograph has not been labelled).
-
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).
-
So, in my world, no need to label a realistically-looking photograph as realistic.
Would you have us believe that motion-blur is realistic?
It is so by the very definition of photography (well, at least for us who subscribe to this point of view).
If that was the only definition there'd be little to discuss.
-
The problem with the originally linked photo is that it is, just like department store mirrors, distorted just so that it leaves us on the verge of wondering ...
No. The angle of repose is grossly larger than dry sand will hold -- I'd guess nearly 2 times larger.
(The open question was whether the photograph showed sand in a cement, wind eroded sandstone.)
-
Isaac, you are going in your sophistic circles... I already explained under which circumstances and why motion blur, black and white photography, etc, are accepted as realistic.
-
No, you just asserted that most people had become used motion-blur.
Indeed there are many unrealistic aspects of photographs to which we become habituated, and there are new unrealistic aspects of photographs to which we are becoming habituated.
-
No. The angle of repose is grossly larger than dry sand will hold -- I'd guess nearly 2 times larger...
Man, you are a textbook example of a hindsight bias. In reply #71, when it wasn't clear what kind of manipulation we are talking about, you were not so categorical as above:
So, we're looking at (famous) sand dunes.
The sinuous line of the crests hinted at sand dunes; but the angle of repose seems too extreme for loose sand.
-
So far Slobodan has not pointed to anything that would suggest Paul Godard presented those photographs as reportage or presented himself as a photojournalist.
However, I think Slobodan is arguing about a different situation where a photograph has not been labelled as "for documentary or other 'record' purposes" (a situation where a photograph has not been labelled).
I understand what Slobodan is saying. I have a differing, more liberal, position. That's fine. We're both entitled to our positions. But that's not the point. Slobodan doesn't need to produce evidence of how the image has been used. I'm saying, based on my position, that if it has been used in such a way and not disclosed, that would be unethical and deceitful. That's working from the presumption that the image is, in fact, a manipulation; which presumption seems not to be in question. Further, there's no need for Goddard to (re)present himself as a journalist for the image to be used in a documentary manner. There are plenty of opportunities for that as a stock sale.
-
Man, you are a textbook example of a hindsight bias. In reply #71, when it wasn't clear what kind of manipulation we are talking about, you were not so categorical as above:
So, we're looking at (famous) sand dunes.
The sinuous line of the crests hinted at sand dunes; but the angle of repose seems too extreme for loose sand.
I just hoped, in vain, that you'd move past rhetoric and actually check the angle of repose for sand (as I had).
Now that distraction is out of the way, please feel free to correct your innuendo that "the originally linked photo is ... distorted just so that it leaves us on the verge of wondering..." when the original photo is in fact grossly distorted.
-
I just hoped, in vain, that you'd move past rhetoric and actually check the angle of repose for sand (as I had).
Sorry, obtaining an engineering degree is still on my to-do list ;)
-
Google and Wikipedia will serve.
-
Google and Wikipedia will serve.
Because anything you find on the Web must be true (like everything that KR says). ;)
-
Because anything you find on the Web must be true...
No more than - anything you find printed in a book or magazine must be true - and yet, in this case, Google and Wikipedia will suffice.
-
No educational institution will permit a student to cite Wikipedia. At least no reputable educational institution.
-
And yet, in this case, Google and Wikipedia will suffice.
-
And yet, in this case, Google and Wikipedia will suffice.
No, not really.
-
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 (http://www.paulgodard.com/) / portfolio (http://www.paulgodard.com/portfolio.html) / Horse Vision - gallery (http://www.paulgodard.com/Alpha/Page.php?Content_ID=1100000000&Collection=horse-vision)
-
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.
-
The first image in that gallery provides the answer to your question.
-
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 (http://www.paulgodard.com/Admin/zViewItem.php?Item=xImage&RECORD_KEY%28NavList%29=Image_ID&Image_ID%28NavList%29=PG_106110&SortOrder=TotalStars+desc%2C+Image_ID+desc&SearchCriteria=%28Mark_Active+%3E+0%29+%26%26+%28FIND_IN_SET%28ShortCodeOrgan%2C%27%2CPG%2C%27%29+%26%26+Mark_IsImage+%3E+0%29+%26%26+%28TotalStars+%3E+4%29+%26%26+%28Mark_Private+%3C+2%29+%26%26+%281%29) 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 (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/photography/2006/08/dont_believe_what_you_see_in_the_papers.html), 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."
-
Slobodan will let you, unavoidably, to have the last word on this.