The Ethics of Photo Manipulation - 3

[Isaac]

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."

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

"Horse Vision -- Surreal landscapes as seen through the eyes of a horse."

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.

[Isaac]

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" is the norm for photojournalism -- that doesn't make it the norm for photography.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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 )

[RFPhotography]

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.

[Isaac]

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 Blagojevic]

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).

[Isaac]

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.

[Isaac]

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.)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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.

[Isaac]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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.

[RFPhotography]

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.

[Isaac]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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

[Isaac]

Google and Wikipedia will serve.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Google and Wikipedia will serve.

Because anything you find on the Web must be true (like everything that KR says).   

[Isaac]

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.

[RFPhotography]

No educational institution will permit a student to cite Wikipedia.  At least no reputable educational institution.

[Isaac]

And yet, in this case, Google and Wikipedia will suffice.