Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: The Man on Digital  (Read 19300 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16910
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #40 on: January 12, 2016, 08:53:05 am »

Can you please elaborate on that? Especially what you meant by "certified" (officers have to be certified to take pictures, or pictures have to be somehow certified?)


Both Canon and Nikon have a certification software. Which has been already cracked  by a Russian company (who else ;) )

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1868
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #41 on: January 12, 2016, 09:11:22 am »

I think the  difference people see or when they know you "Photoshopped" it is like the difference of going to Alaska to flyfish for salmon in the wilds or going to a local fish farm stocked with your fish.  In both cases you come home with a fish.    But there's something different about the way you caught it.  Average people usually don't apply the same value of work on the farm fish.  They think somehow your cheated or at a minimum that it's not real fishing.  Well. I think viewers look at photos the same way.  Photoshop has taken something away from photography. 

The argument that film was modified before doesn't fly for most people who photographed with film.  For them, they either shot  chromes and projected them with no modification at all.  Or they shot negative film and sent it out to a lab that printed the pictures on 4"x6" paper, also with no modification by the photographer.  So along comes PS which they now use.  They know the edits they can and do make.  So they understand it's not the same as film was years ago.  It's not the same as going to Alaska to fly fish.

We aren't talking about people who owned instamatics and sent their rolls into the drugstore and purchased 4x6 prints...these same people take photos with their phones and post directly to the net without any modifications...nothing changed here.

We are talking about people that would work for hours in the darkroom manipulating their prints using various techniques to enhance their photo....modify it from what the negative captured. This same process happens today with a computer replacing the darkroom. Sure you can merge two photos very simply with the computer...but this same merging occurred in the darkroom.

If you think projected slides are pure...what about those neon green Velvia scenes everyone was so excited about...is that not the same as the glowing red digitally manipulated sunset?

The difference is that in the film days...we duped the public into thinking photography was pure whereas in the digital world the public has caught on.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16910
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #42 on: January 12, 2016, 09:27:31 am »

...these same people take photos with their phones and post directly to the net without any modifications...nothing changed here...

Riiiight. Which explains Instagram's (and its filters) user base of 300+ millions and valuation of $35-40 billions.

The usual advice applies here: when in a hole, stop digging.

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1868
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #43 on: January 12, 2016, 09:32:18 am »

Riiiight. Which explains Instagram's (and its filters) user base of 300+ millions and valuation of $35-40 billions.

The usual advice applies here: when in a hole, stop digging.

Sure there are examples of manipulation everywhere...but then there are 100x ( maybe more ) photos being taken today...

I'm just saying people are naive to think there has been no manipulation in the darkroom.

And thanks for your enlightened comment. Maybe just sit back next time to keep things civil.
Logged

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #44 on: January 12, 2016, 10:07:37 am »

chez,

Quote
...in the film days...we duped the public into thinking photography was pure...

Did photographers dupe the public, or did the public dupe itself?
Logged

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #45 on: January 12, 2016, 10:20:41 am »

chez,

Did photographers dupe the public, or did the public dupe itself?

It was a team effort...
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1868
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #46 on: January 12, 2016, 10:24:47 am »

chez,

Did photographers dupe the public, or did the public dupe itself?

Does it matter? Were we honest with the public when we emerged from the darkroom holding the print? The darkroom was a mystery to the public...work hidden behind closed doors. The public was ignorant on what occurs behind these closed doors.
Logged

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #47 on: January 12, 2016, 11:52:01 am »

chez,

Quote
Does it matter? Were we honest with the public when we emerged from the darkroom holding the print?

Perhaps the public did not consider photography to be art.

Quote
As far as what the public thinks...I make photographic art and use whatever is at my disposal to create it. If someone asks me if I "photoshopped" my print...

Perhaps the public does not consider photography to be art.



Zorki5,

Quote
It was a team effort...

Apparently some team members have lost faith in their teammates.
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #48 on: January 12, 2016, 12:13:33 pm »

The MOMA considered photography to be Art, starting from their inception in 1929.

They didn't consider it to be painting, however.
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #49 on: January 12, 2016, 01:16:12 pm »

Which explains Instagram's (and its filters) user base of 300+ millions and valuation of $35-40 billions.

Quote
"One of the main motivations for filter use is to enhance a photo and correct for brightness, saturation, contrast and focus. The  filters  that  are used for  enhancement  are  usually milder in the effect intensity and are applied to enhance the photo while keeping the main imagery or the subject with minimal alterations. casual photographers who do not have much knowledge of photography as an art, described the filters primarily as tools that make the photos more special There are a lot of cases when users prefer to share the photo without filtering it."

pdf Why We Filter Our Photos and How It Impacts Engagement
Logged

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #50 on: January 12, 2016, 02:07:03 pm »

Apparently some team members have lost faith in their teammates.

Which is IMHO a good thing.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1868
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #51 on: January 12, 2016, 02:31:59 pm »

chez,

Perhaps the public did not consider photography to be art.


The people who buy my prints to hang in their living rooms definitely consider them as art.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1868
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #52 on: January 12, 2016, 02:40:04 pm »

The MOMA considered photography to be Art, starting from their inception in 1929.

They didn't consider it to be painting, however.

Funny you say that. One of my most popular prints is an image of a group of Sockey salmon which I put through Corel Painter using a heavy oil brush printed onto canvas. People love it...have it hanging in a lodge printed at 6'x4'
Logged

razrblck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 482
  • Chill
    • Instagram
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2016, 04:50:25 am »

Can you please elaborate on that? Especially what you meant by "certified" (officers have to be certified to take pictures, or pictures have to be somehow certified?)


Basically write down that they took the pictures and they have not be tampered with in any way. They put their names on it and will be held accountable in a courtroom if they turned out to be staged or edited. There is no software involved, just plain old trusting people.
Logged
Instagram (updated often)

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1809
    • Some of my photos
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #54 on: January 13, 2016, 10:50:34 am »

Can you please elaborate on that? Especially what you meant by "certified" (officers have to be certified to take pictures, or pictures have to be somehow certified?)

The way it used to work in Australia was that you needed an evidentiary chain. It didn't depend on the equipment, but you needed the photographer to get on the stand and swear that the photo was a true representation of the scene. If the photographer was not available (suppose you found a canister of film on a body), then the person who developed and printed the film would need to testify.

You can always modify images, but the law works according to the magic thinking that people will not lie under oath (although there is at least a risk they'll be thrown in jail for perjury), or that the jury will recognise that they are lying. It's not really any different to eg DNA evidence.
Logged

razrblck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 482
  • Chill
    • Instagram
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #55 on: January 15, 2016, 05:49:17 am »

The way it used to work in Australia was that you needed an evidentiary chain. It didn't depend on the equipment, but you needed the photographer to get on the stand and swear that the photo was a true representation of the scene. If the photographer was not available (suppose you found a canister of film on a body), then the person who developed and printed the film would need to testify.

You can always modify images, but the law works according to the magic thinking that people will not lie under oath (although there is at least a risk they'll be thrown in jail for perjury), or that the jury will recognise that they are lying. It's not really any different to eg DNA evidence.

Pretty much this. Like with any other type of evidence it can be forged and you rely on a trust system.

The only way I can think of to properly authenticate a picture via software would be to encrypt the content with a public/private key pair at high bits (512+) so that it would be near impossible to decrypt in a short time span. Obviously you'll need to keep the private key in a safe place, because if it gets out in the wild then you can't trust those pictures any more than you can trust someone under oath.
Logged
Instagram (updated often)

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #56 on: January 15, 2016, 06:08:31 am »

The only way I can think of to properly authenticate a picture via software would be to encrypt the content with a public/private key pair at high bits (512+) so that it would be near impossible to decrypt in a short time span. Obviously you'll need to keep the private key in a safe place, because if it gets out in the wild then you can't trust those pictures any more than you can trust someone under oath.

This is essentially what Canon's and Nikon's image authentication systems are doing. Unfortunately, it was proved to be possible to extract private keys from their FW, so...
Logged

razrblck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 482
  • Chill
    • Instagram
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #57 on: January 20, 2016, 04:06:00 pm »

Nikon's software solution was compromised back in 2011. It was available on the D200, D2, D3, D300 and D700 models. Most recent models lack the option and I can confirm that my D200 with the latest firmware has the Image Authentication setting in the setup (wrench) menu, while my D7000 with the latest firmware does not have the option. I've found on a website that the D7000 had this option at launch, but Nikon may have removed it in one of the firmware releases. The software itself is no longer being sold nor supported.
Logged
Instagram (updated often)

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14361
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #58 on: January 20, 2016, 04:26:41 pm »

Both Canon and Nikon have a certification software. Which has been already cracked  by a Russian company (who else ;) )

Probably the same guys who darkroomed (a primitive form of photoshopping) Trotsky out of the picture.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: The Man on Digital
« Reply #59 on: January 20, 2016, 04:27:42 pm »

Solutions of this sort merely present a sort of "low wall" that must be consciously hopped over.

You can't accidentally, or in a moment of poor judgement, modify a picture. You have to go ahead and make an effort. So it always is. Much of the protocols of police work, as well as other lines of work in all walks of life, is to keep basically honest people honest. The profoundly dishonest cannot, really, be stopped, they can only be caught (sometimes) and punished.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up