Is this acceptable?

[AndrewKulin]

I am curious what people think about adding something into a photo that was not originally there to begin with.  The example below is a vertical stitch of three photos.  The uppermost photo picks up the top of the Obelisk (Paris), skyline and sky and completes the stitch (nothing out of the ordinary there)

The lower half of the photo actually consists of two photos (originals attached) which have been combined as I liked the way the family was laid out in the first photo which has the young lady in black way down in the lower right corner but I felt she was too close to the corner.  So I added into the stitched photo the mother and child from the other photo (taken with a minute or two of each other from same spot) to help draw the eye in from the extreme corner and I happen to quite like the end result.

I suppose that I have the artistic license to do this, particularly for my own use.  But what about doing something like this on an art print that will end up being sold (or being offered for sale)?  Is that okay or unacceptable practice or is it case specific.  e.g., in this example had the Mother and child left from wherever 30 seconds earlier or walked just that much more briskly everyone would have been in the frame together resulting in the same picture, so what is shown is not a big "lie", right? Not like say adding some famous movie star into the picture or an amazing car crash in the background?



Andrew

[attachment=16689:Cyclist_Panorama.jpg]

[attachment=16691:_MG_9879...Object_1.jpg][attachment=16690:_MG_9876...Object_1.
jpg]

[jasonrandolph]

While I don't think there's anything wrong with doing this for yourself, when you move into the realm of sales/exhibition, I am of the opinion that the fact that the image is a composite should be disclosed.  As long as the audience/clientele knows, I'd say it's fair game.  

By the way, you did a nice job.  I never would've guessed that it wasn't a single decisive moment.

[Ray]

The issue revolves around a motivation to deceive and manipulate. With art, it seems anything goes. One of the purpose of art is to convey a personal, emotive response to a scene. However, with photojournalism, the purpose is not art but dissemination of information. In this context, image composites in Photojournalism, that attempt to manipulate public opinion, can be very dangerous and should be strongly discouraged.

[JeffKohn]

I dunno. I've used the technique of taking multiple pictures and then combining them to _remove_ people from the scene (since they're moving around between frames). This seems like kind of the same thing only in reverse. I guess it's a little different since what you're adding is at least partly the subject, while I'm removing a distraction.

If you think about it, is what you did really any different than if you had used cooperative subjects to stage the same shot? I don't think so. And you can't tell me that shots of this type haven't been staged/directed in the past, even famous ones.

[stamper]

I used to be a member of a camera club. Three or four years ago a print judge explained to the audience that a regular camera club member used to enter images into competitions that were different scenes except for the fact that in the corner of them the same person was part of the picture. He reckoned that the images were of an excellent standard and the inclusion of the person "added" to the images. This was perfectly acceptable to him and other judges. BTW this was before the days of digital imaging. Anything goes if you can do it without anyone realising?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My view may be that as long as you see your image as "art" you can do whatever you want, as long as it is not defamatory to the subjects. For "journalistic" pictures  no manipulation is acceptable.

Best regards
Erik

I am curious what people think about adding something into a photo that was not originally there to begin with.  The example below is a vertical stitch of three photos.  The uppermost photo picks up the top of the Obelisk (Paris), skyline and sky and completes the stitch (nothing out of the ordinary there)

The lower half of the photo actually consists of two photos (originals attached) which have been combined as I liked the way the family was laid out in the first photo which has the young lady in black way down in the lower right corner but I felt she was too close to the corner.  So I added into the stitched photo the mother and child from the other photo (taken with a minute or two of each other from same spot) to help draw the eye in from the extreme corner and I happen to quite like the end result.

I suppose that I have the artistic license to do this, particularly for my own use.  But what about doing something like this on an art print that will end up being sold (or being offered for sale)?  Is that okay or unacceptable practice or is it case specific.  e.g., in this example had the Mother and child left from wherever 30 seconds earlier or walked just that much more briskly everyone would have been in the frame together resulting in the same picture, so what is shown is not a big "lie", right? Not like say adding some famous movie star into the picture or an amazing car crash in the background?



Andrew

[attachment=16689:Cyclist_Panorama.jpg]

[attachment=16691:_MG_9879...Object_1.jpg][attachment=16690:_MG_9876...Object_1.
jpg]

[cmi]

Do it but be honest about in at places where it matters. Be prepared to get asked about it, but if you're reluctant you throw a bad light on your art. On the other hand, today nobody knows anyway what is staged and what real. The only relevant question for me in judging an image wich is not an obvious montage is, is it believable?

[RSL]

The issue revolves around a motivation to deceive and manipulate. With art, it seems anything goes. One of the purpose of art is to convey a personal, emotive response to a scene. However, with photojournalism, the purpose is not art but dissemination of information. In this context, image composites in Photojournalism, that attempt to manipulate public opinion, can be very dangerous and should be strongly discouraged.

I agree with what Ray said. There's nothing wrong with manipulating a picture as long as the result is accompanied by full disclosure. But as he said, if what you're doing is photojournalism, or if you're going to label the result "street photography," this kind of manipulation is a no-no.

By the way, Andrew, it's an excellent composite. Everything works.

[Luis Argerich]

If that is how you remember the scene how can it be wrong?
The brain can capture time, you can remember a beautiful scene from the sum of events that happened the camera can't capture time but you can emulate that with this and other techniques.

[dchew]

If that is how you remember the scene how can it be wrong?
The brain can capture time, you can remember a beautiful scene from the sum of events that happened the camera can't capture time but you can emulate that with this and other techniques.

Well, I for one find it difficult enough to remember things that actually happened, let alone things that never did.

Dave

[PeterAit]

While I don't think there's anything wrong with doing this for yourself, when you move into the realm of sales/exhibition, I am of the opinion that the fact that the image is a composite should be disclosed.  As long as the audience/clientele knows, I'd say it's fair game.  

By the way, you did a nice job.  I never would've guessed that it wasn't a single decisive moment.

I agree that there's nothing inherently wrojg with it as long as you don;t misrepresent the image. I don't care for the technique myself because I think the heart of photography is the capturing of a small slice of the world at a particular instant. That's just a personal opinion, though, and I do not disparage those who add elements to photographs (or remove them) - but when do these folks stop being photographers and start being collagists?

Peter

[jule]

I am curious what people think about adding something into a photo that was not originally there to begin with.  The example below is a vertical stitch of three photos.

The first consideration is what you call "a photo" - when your "photo" is already a composite of 3 stitched images. How different is adding objects when images have been stitched and is a composite in the first place?

Julie

[AndrewKulin]

I totally agree with the consensus that what I did here would not be acceptable as photo-journalism or even "street" photography.  I was somewhat on the fence personally adding people into the photo but I get the sense it's "okay" to do (on occasion) and I would have disclosed the alteration in any case.

The comment that struck me most (i.e., really made me think) was Julie's comment/question: "The first consideration is what you call "a photo" - when your "photo" is already a composite of 3 stitched images. How different is adding objects when images have been stitched and is a composite in the first place?"

I am using the stitching technique to increase the range of my camera (40D) to permit me to create images I could not naturally create with my camera, such as panoramas or a detailed photograph that because of the stitching can be printed to a larger size than would be normally the case with a 10.1 MP APS-C sensor.  And as I try to shoot the stitched sequence as quickly as I can to mimimize movement between frames (clouds/water etc.) I consider the end product to be a photograph as it is close enough to an "accurate" record of instant of time by my reckoning.  Whereas, the manipulation of the photograph I provided above (in adding people) results in a scene that did not really happen (but could have happened realistically) but also improves the overall composition and mood that I was trying to convey.


Andrew