The Ethics of Photo Manipulation - 3

[kencameron]

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.

[RFPhotography]

It's not a matter that it irks me, Ken.  It just makes reading continuity less fluid.

[barryfitzgerald]

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.

[Isaac]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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/

[Isaac]

Wind Draperies - Namibia (on Paul Godard's website)

Slobodan, what would you like to say about that photo?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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.

[Isaac]

What do you think the photo shows?

I'm not sure I know, there seems to be some grayish talus.

[stamper]

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.

[stamper]

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.

[RFPhotography]

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.

[Isaac]

Sossusvlei, Namibia - 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.

[Isaac]

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?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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.

[32BT]

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).

[Isaac]

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?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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.

[32BT]

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...

[Isaac]

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.