Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Nelsonretreat on February 01, 2016, 01:33:37 am
-
I'm sure this will amuse those who have strong views about some of the more creative users of photoshop!
Nikon takes down plane photo after row
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35457135
This is a BBC article about yet another set of photo competition judges.. this time for Nikon, who had to rescind an award after angry social media users pointed out the gross and crude photoshopping done on the image!
It also tells you everything you ever needed to know about the judges in photo competitions!
-
I actually judged a local club photography competition a couple of weeks ago and there was a picture entered in a similar vein. Looking up between tall buildings in London with an aircraft flying directly overhead. It was well done and without knowing the exact location and flight paths of aircraft, I could not possibly have known if it was a 'straight' picture or a composite. I didn't much care really - the picture did not really excite me anyway in either case.
From the web picture on the news article it is not clear to me if the picture was 'Photoshopped' or not. I presume the judges could not tell either - in which case why are Nikon apologising? Did the competition rules specifically state that no manipulation is allowed?
Actually, now I look carefully I can just about see a rectangular box around the aircraft. So either the judges did not see a high-res picture, or they are not experienced photographers. But I think the principle here is the key question - aside from the poor-quality editing skills - does it matter if the image is a composite? Personally I'm not an enthusiast of composited pictures - but then I have seen some outstanding ones.
Jim
-
I'm not that keen on composites but I bet I have seen lots and liked them without knowing. Same with quality HDR.
-
Undisclosed or non-obvious composites are the antithesis of photography.
-
Did the competition rules specifically state that no manipulation is allowed?
Apparently not - "The terms of the competition say the photos must be original works, though doesn't specifically bar editing."
-
Personally I'm not an enthusiast of composited pictures - but then I have seen some outstanding ones.
Undisclosed or non-obvious composites are the antithesis of photography.
Unlike many of his contemporaries in the New York School who — like the Group f/64 “purists” on the opposite coast — abjured any post-exposure manipulation of the image in the darkroom, Feinstein saw photomontage as a process unique to and inherent in photography as a medium (http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/2015/07/02/harold-feinstein-1931-2015-a-farewell/). Considering himself a visual poet, not a documentarian, he accepted photomontage into his toolkit, mastered it (one of his best-loved images involves combining eight separate negatives), wrote explanations of his techniques, and in general took it for granted as one of the necessary skills of the serious interpretive printmaker in photography.
http://www.haroldfeinstein.com/
-
Isaac, how your quote has anything to do with what I said?
-
"the antithesis of photography" :: "unique to and inherent in photography as a medium"
-
Well, gee, I got that.
Did you get the part where I qualified it for "undisclosed or non-obvious composites"?
-
Did you get the part where "unique to and inherent in photography as a medium" is not qualified?
-
He "wrote explanations of his techniques," thus doesn't qualify as undisclosed.
-
He "wrote explanations of his techniques," thus doesn't qualify as undisclosed.
With that reasoning, digital composites don't qualify as "undisclosed" (https://books.google.com/books?id=OGO8AwAAQBAJ).
-
They don't, because they are obvious. I used both scenarios, "undisclosed or non-obvious," but you, being your old hairsplitting self, are splitting my duo and cherry-picking one to suit your misguided examples.
To return to the OP situation, the issue at hand is the photographer's explanation that was clearly stating it was a lucky shot, being in the right place at the right time and pressing the shutter with a Cartier-Bresson's sense for the decisive moment. In other words, a simple LIE.
Since it was undisclosed and non-obvious, it is the antithesis of photography.
But hey, feel free to surf the net in search of another exception that proves the rule.
-
To return to the OP situation, the issue at hand is the photographer's explanation … In other words, a simple LIE.
Yes that is the issue -- the photographer's explanation; not your opinion about how photography should be restricted.
-
Who said anything about restricting photography!? I love Jerry Uelsmann and consider him a terrific photographer and artist, for instance.
-
I'm sure this will amuse those who have strong views about some of the more creative users of photoshop!
Nikon takes down plane photo after row
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35457135
This is a BBC article about yet another set of photo competition judges.. this time for Nikon, who had to rescind an award after angry social media users pointed out the gross and crude photoshopping done on the image!
Christ, talk about a tempest in a teapot! In a contest that did not prohibit photo editing, this fellow won - hold your breath - a trolley bag (whatever that is). And all the whiners came out of the woodwork because, after all, this is such an important issue. If I roll my eyes any further I'll be looking out of the back of my head!
It also tells you everything you ever needed to know about the judges in photo competitions!
Really? All judges in all competitions?
-
... In a contest that did not prohibit photo editing...
Editing and compositing are two rather different things. Most contest allow editing, but prohibit (or separate) compositing.
-
…after all, this is such an important issue.
To some it is an issue worth repeated discussion -- previously on Lula forums, "My argument is simply that these are not 'photographs' (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99231.msg815015#msg815015) "
-
Who said anything about restricting photography!?
You. (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107833.msg887800#msg887800)
-
Err, as I understand it, we are not talking about a Pulitzer. It was some crap competition run by the marketing dept at Nikon, and the guy won a camera bag.
Yeah, he lied. Big deal.
-
Err, as I understand it, we are not talking about a Pulitzer. It was some crap competition run by the marketing dept at Nikon, and the guy won a camera bag.
Yeah, he lied. Big deal.
It is known as "broken-window policing."
-
Hmm, fair point.
-
My motto about this sort of stuff: so long as you disclose, anything goes. ;)
-Dave-
-
What must we disclose, and what can we assume as 'given'?
-
What must we disclose, and what can we assume as 'given'?
As a minimum, "given" is that you are not going to deliberately deceive, as was the OP case.
-
Err, as I understand it, we are not talking about a Pulitzer. It was some crap competition run by the marketing dept at Nikon, and the guy won a camera bag.
Yeah, he lied. Big deal.
I'm totally in agreement! What the heck is wrong with people lying? I've been trying to teach this to my kids for years. Lying about unimportant things is a no brainer. Only saps tell the truth. Why can't they teach this sort of thing in schools?
-
The picture is mainly presented as a photo-journalist type shot which has even a higher standard for non-manipulation.
It's especially a big deal to the other entrants. Nikon had to apologize to protect their relations with their customers.
-
Undisclosed or non-obvious composites are the antithesis of photography.
I wouldn't say that, because I think it works better to understand "photography" as a very broad descriptive term, meaning something like "making images using a camera and post processing", and to separate out ethical considerations about what is done within that domain. Importing the ethical considerations into the definition of photography (as I think you are doing) seems to create misunderstanding and raised blood pressure. I agree, though, that transparency about post processing is sometimes essential, particularly where there are rules (competitions) and/or an expectation that the image will be in some sense "telling the truth" (documentary or press photography). Where there are no rules and no expectations (much "art photography") then transparency about the means may be interesting but certainly isn't mandatory, and it may even be legitimate for the artist/photographer to deliberately mislead the viewer, or at least play with the expectation (from which photography that looks as if it might represent something seen can't easily escape) that a certain kind of truth is being told. There are grey areas (some "landscape art photography") which give rise to heated debate. Is it enough for it to be beautiful, or does it have to show everything that was there? An issue we go over again and again on this site, and for good reason, IMO.
-
Here's a thought to avoid all these arguents. You could have two categories in photo competitions.
Category 1 (for Photographers.)
I took the photograph and I submitted it.
Category 2 (for Artists)
I took the photograpgh and then I added stuff or mabe I stitched several photgraphs together , Oh, maybe I also added something that wasn't there in the original photograph. Oh I forgot to say I also had a brilliant moon shot I took in 2003 and I thought it would look great if I added it to my entry. Oh and I didn't like the color of the grass so I changed it and the rocks didnt look pink enough in the sunset so I made them pink rather than their real colour. Oh and I nearly forgot the water wasnt milky white the way I Like it so I sorted that out as well.
-
Here's a thought to avoid all these arguents. You could have two categories in photo competitions.
Category 1 (for Photographers.)
I took the photograph and I submitted it.
Category 2 (for Artists)
I took the photograpgh and then I added stuff or mabe I stitched several photgraphs together , Oh, maybe I also added something that wasn't there in the original photograph. Oh I forgot to say I also had a brilliant moon shot I took in 2003 and I thought it would look great if I added it to my entry. Oh and I didn't like the color of the grass so I changed it and the rocks didnt look pink enough in the sunset so I made them pink rather than their real colour. Oh and I nearly forgot the water wasnt milky white the way I Like it so I sorted that out as well.
Nelson, these are wonderful ideas that you propose: I'm surprised that nobody thought of them before!
What would art be if it were nothing more than a mirror to the moment? At least a cracked mirror may introduce some magic, even if at the risk of seven leaner years which, come to think of it, no true artist would really notice as being any the more lean than one of the others...
Rob C