The Ethics of Photo Manipulation - 3

[jrsforums]

Ah! Absence of curiosity.

Not interested in your useless baiting tactics.

[Isaac]

I look at images as art (appart from journalistic ones).

I either like them or I don't.  I do not ask, directly, if they are the ACTUAL scene.

When you tell me that you're not curious about the images you look at, I believe you -- you know better than me that you're not curious.

[HSway]

Not when viewing as art.

There already is a program that generates beautiful pictures.
You can choose the character like urban, love, romance, nature, birds, underwater, alien worlds you name it.
Really mid-blowing experience is setting 30 frames per minute which is the maximum the last version can do.
If you can’t find it’s probably sold out. But looking through a good kaleidoscope can keep you alright for a while as far as the aesthetic appreciation goes 

Aesthetics (like Art) without a connection is infantile or simply disconnected (insert the diagnosis).

A photograph has another connection in that sense that without a direct connection (the topic and questions about it possibly) to the seen is outside that term.
One can of course add an adjective and specify in case it’s suitable etc. That is naturally happening because people mostly like to share and talk about their photography. The bottom line is ‘Whatever keeps you real happy’. which can vary very much as with everything else. And if you have issues in competitions you need to adjust.

My guess would be that after a yearlong massage with the kaleidoscope many people can actually find themselves thrilled by seeing a photograph. Be it quite a simple one or a snapshot. That sort of thing can also happen to aesthetics.

Hynek

[Jim Pascoe]

I sort of lost the will to live on the various threads in this discussion about photo-manipulation, so I'm not sure who believes what anymore,  However I did read this earlier which was from the late Eddy Sethna

http://www.monolandscapes.talktalk.net/creativity.htm

An interesting take on the subject of manipulation.

Jim

[barryfitzgerald]

Quite a good article worth a read.
The debate will drag on, but we all make our own choices on this one. Less is more for me and probably always will be.

[Isaac]

Less is more for me and probably always will be.

That's a question of aesthetics (minimalist Mies), not a question of ethics :-)

[barryfitzgerald]

I'm not changing my view on this, I respect how others feel, but I think we've thrashed this one to death.
We each take the path we want to, that is our own unique one and it's a different journey for everyone.

[Isaac]

I don't wish you to change your preferred aesthetic; I'd just like to see how you justify turning that aesthetic into an ethic.

[barryfitzgerald]

Well that's my point, I can do what I like and so can you. If you feel it's aesthetic then fine I'm happy for you, I feel it's an ethical point but that's my own view.
So agree to disagree and lets move on.

I'm not going to change how I feel to please anyone, nor do I have to justify anything to anyone.
They're my photos, I do as I want...as does everyone else with their own work.

Otherwise we'll simply end up like one of those tedious political discussions..nobody changes their view, mostly arguments and ultimately it's quite pointless.
And no it's not about being a purist or a minimalist either. People tend to try to pigeon-hole opinions into neat tidy spaces, life isn't like that..neither is photography!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... how you justify turning that aesthetic into an ethic.

Easy.

As we move on the continuum from your preferred meaning of the word "manipulation" (as "skillful use of tools") toward more common understanding of the word (i.e., "deceit"), we are moving from aesthetic to ethic.

[Isaac]

... nor do I have to justify anything to anyone.

It would be interesting if you could.

As you wish.

[kencameron]

As we move on the continuum from your preferred meaning of the word "manipulation" (as "skillful use of tools") toward more common understanding of the word (i.e., "deceit"), we are moving from aesthetic to ethic.

Nice at first reading, but doesn't survive examination. You are merely pointing to the difference between two understandings of the meaning of a word. This doesn't provide a basis for arguing that certain kinds of post-processing are unethical. Lying (explicitly or implicitly) about what you have done is unethical. What you do is a matter of taste.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... This doesn't provide a basis for arguing that certain kinds of post-processing are unethical...

If deceit is ethical, than you are correct.

[Isaac]

And if deceit is unethical, then he is correct.

"You are merely pointing to the difference between two understandings of the meaning of a word. This doesn't provide a basis for arguing that certain kinds of post-processing are unethical."

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Gee, Isaac, where would this forum be without your superior semantic expertise!

[RFPhotography]

What Barry is describing and is being ascribed by others as an aesthetic is also his personal ethic.  There is such a thing as a personal ethic that may be more or less restrictive than others, or as compared to an accepted norm.  I, for example, won't do anything in with digital photography/editing that I couldn't do with film.  That's my personal ethic.  So I won't, for example, swap a sky from one image and mask it into another.  That's more restrictive than some.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Nice at first reading, but doesn't survive examination. You are merely pointing to the difference between two understandings of the meaning of a word. This doesn't provide a basis for arguing that certain kinds of post-processing are unethical. Lying (explicitly or implicitly) about what you have done is unethical. What you do is a matter of taste.

Let me simplify it:

1. Processing (manipulation) as "skillful use of tools" =  aesthetic (taste)

2. Processing (manipulation) with the intention to deceive = ethics

Thus certain kinds of post-processing are unethical, even it can be utterly aesthetic (pleasing).

[Isaac]

1. Photographing (manipulation) as "skillful use of tools" =  aesthetic (taste)

2. Photographing (manipulation) with the intention to deceive = ethics

Thus certain kinds of photographing are unethical, even it can be utterly aesthetic (pleasing).

[kencameron]

...certain kinds of post-processing are unethical, even it can be utterly aesthetic (pleasing).

Well - yes, but only if and when when someone else sees the image and is deceived by it. Let me try to simplify.

1. Nothing I do to my own images with my own copy of photoshop in my own home can ever be unethical because it is deceitful. There is no-one there to be deceived. It may of course be inept, etcetera, but that is a different matter.

2. Once I show the image to even one other person, the possibility of deceit arises, in relation to pretty much all post-processing, including, I suggest, the versions of it that you and others on your side of the argument happen to be comfortable with. If the viewer doesn't understand that, and how, the image has been altered, and you are in any way complicit in that "misunderstanding", you are being unethical. This applies as much to dodging and burning as it does to large-scale cloning.

3. The difficulty arises in relation to how and when photographers might be complicit in such misunderstandings, or, to put it differently, what it is reasonable to assume in relation to published photographs not subject to explicit special conditions such as in photojournalism or competitions. I would want to know what people actually assume, and would guess that they do see a difference between dodging and burning (no surprise finding out it has happened) and large-scale cloning (feeling conned).

4. To summarise - postprocessing to deceive is unethical, but if the viewer knows exactly what you have done, the only judgement left for them to make is aesthetic.

[RFPhotography]

Was the decision made to show an image to other before or after the editing started?  If before then the intent to deceive could well have occurred before showing the image to others.