August 30, 2014, 12:15:01 PM

Author Topic: Wrong Photography Ethics?  (Read 35930 times)

Chuck Alaimo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #180 on: May 21, 2013, 12:30:32 PM »
I so want to comment and discuss so many of the posts in this thread but currently struggling with time. Shooting a feature and it requires 15 hours of my time. The heat is killing. But I will do when I can.

Will quickly say now: Image manipulation is part of the game - done in camera or in post.

Am attaching a photo I took on vacation with my 12 year old. There is no post and it was done in-camera. When I showed it to my 12 it daughter on the lcd of the camera, she said "All photographers are LIARS."

Even a kid can see that. Yes, I am slowly but surely getting convinced that ALL photographs are MANIPULATION. Perhaps I am being too quick in thinking like that...?

Nice --- in one of my replies to this I brought up how often the surreal nature of night long exposure works makes people say ---that's not real.. or that's a painting...and I get similar comments when I shoot sunset portraits with external lighting...
Owns 5Dmkiii, 6D, 16-35mm, 24mm 1.4, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, 1-600RT, 2 430 EX's, 1 video light

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #180 on: May 21, 2013, 12:30:32 PM »

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #181 on: May 21, 2013, 12:42:14 PM »
If I bought that PHOTO from the OP I wouldn't care about the edit because looking at it everyday would better my mood.

I personally wouldn't buy a print like this, just not my thing...but...if it were, and the image drew my eye enough to want it, why would I care about what was done to it...whatever was done obviously just made me want it more, hence why I have it on the wall.  If I were that person and I found out after buying that the clouds were added in, would I really take it off the wall and burn it then send nasty letters to the artist?...  I wouldn't...but then again...what do I know - when this sells for 1.9 million...maybe none of us know anything...lol - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/nude-bea-arthur-painting-by-john-currin-sells-christies-auction_n_3284898.html?utm_hp_ref=arts

Excellent point!  And those breasts are decidedly below average in quality, and the rendition of her face is just plain off.  Whoever bought this, even if they just paid $50...would have to be utterly possessed of more funds than taste!  I can see why they're remaining anonymous...perhaps it was someone who wanted to purchase it so they could burn it?

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4414
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #182 on: May 21, 2013, 12:52:45 PM »
So again, where is that line in the sand? Is it as simple as ---if you can pull it off in lightroom it's real, but the moment it hits photoshop it isn't?  Oh wait, there's that spot removal tool in lightroom...

I think we all could agree on that with digital there is no binary "line in the sand", but for me it's good to get an awareness where the grey area is for me and other people - and one point certainly is adding information that wasn't in the original shot, while heavy lr postprocessing or single-scene compositing (hdr, blending) and some spot "cleaning" imho is ok and qualifies as (digital) photography.

Syl Arena writes (I can't remember the exact quote): "I'm a photographer, not a postprocessing artist" and that's why he tries to get it right in camera and not in photoshop.

Chuck Alaimo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #183 on: May 21, 2013, 01:06:14 PM »
My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?

The thing about this statement --for the most part...nat geo shots are carefully planned voyages (sometimes multiple voyages) to epic locations ---- EPIC LOCATIONS!!!!!!!! (and yes they do post process things too)...  I live in Buffalo NY, and while there may be some nice spots to shoot... other than niagara falls is there truly anything epic here? --- nat geo Epic????  I do not have thousands of dollars in travel budget...and my wedding and portrait clients don't have thousands of dollars to spend to have their wedding at the top of Mt Everest, or the jungles of Brazil, or deep in greenlands glaciers, or off in the magical hobbit land that is new Zealand...we aren't going to the tops of the Andes, not hiking through Cambodia, no sleek desert dunes of Tatooine (LOL...Tunisia), no engagement shoot at the great wall of China, no South African Diamond Mine, and not in a tribal village in New Guinea......I could go on and on but you get the point I hope.  Nat Geo goes to EPIC places!!!!! They also have the budget to wait out the weather if need be.  They also have the budget to go back if they wait 2 weeks and the weather doesn't work out.  They have their own submarines for crying out loud, subs, helicopters, planes, large boats....so yeah, Nat Geo can hold to a more natural approach...because they are generally going places that are so epic they don't need much manipulation.  Most of us don't have EPIC locations at pur doorstep, most of us are engaged in the art of pulling the beauty out of and or creating magic from a mundane scene.  LOL...  in the portrait/wedding world, it's like wondering why you handle a sports illustrated swimsuit model with full wardrobe and makeup crew differently than a plus sized bride at a budget wedding....
Owns 5Dmkiii, 6D, 16-35mm, 24mm 1.4, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, 1-600RT, 2 430 EX's, 1 video light

Chuck Alaimo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #184 on: May 21, 2013, 01:25:51 PM »

If you feel your photography is exceptional and you are a top photographer, try sending your images to Nat Geo.

They only have one rule. You must send them the RAW image aswell. If its tweeked, its in the bin.

Dont believe me? Then give it a try.

so what your saying is its ok to have my raw settings, picture style/saturation/sharpness etc  set in camera, but if i zero out everything and do it in my raw converter then its not ok? 

that makes no sense to me whatsoever !

Bang on again.....

If I set up everything before the shot, then the out-of-camera jpg is acceptable.
If I take that RAW file and apply the exact same settings, it is evil.
And strangely enough, If I take that RAW file and make a B/W jpg out of it.... that's OK ?!?!?!?!?!
And all this from the magazine that publishes photos of "Bart the Bear" from Wasatch Rocky Mountain Animals as wildlife? That's like me heading of to the Papanac Zoo and shooting pictures of the wild animals.

As Spock would say.... "Highly illogical"

Step further....grad ND filters ----OK
But don't you dare take 3 bracketed images and composite them together (which is essentially the same thing...)
Owns 5Dmkiii, 6D, 16-35mm, 24mm 1.4, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, 1-600RT, 2 430 EX's, 1 video light

awinphoto

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1984
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #185 on: May 21, 2013, 02:25:20 PM »
yawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image?  For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself...  I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)

Disagree, I think both pixel peeping and photo ethics are perfectly valid subjects to discuss on a photography forum, even a rumors forum (since there are sections meant to discuss things other than rumors).  12 pages is nothing on here, some of the threads go to what, 30 or more pages?

I do agree that worrying about whether an image has been altered or not, can be more of a trivial waste of time, in this day and age. 

However, I also agree with Don Haines, because pictures with an intent to deceive, could very likely be done by some of the same sort of people who would use the IRS to gain political power, or perhaps even to begin "cleansing" a certain group of people...and I don't mean with soap!  "The end justifies the means..."

Pictures with the intent to deceive...  Golly... then any photograph with green screen, any movie with CGI or green screen or stunt actors or.....  It's not like we are forensic photographers trying to cover our butts from defense attorneys who may blow up your photo in court and try to discredit your photos...  with the rare exception of scientific photography, photography is an art form, it is what you want the viewer to look at, i just think this is a topic that has beaten to death... just let it be. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

Chuck Alaimo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #186 on: May 21, 2013, 02:27:42 PM »
You have to look at the intent.

The aspect of altering photos that gets to me is when a photo is faked to be misleading. It can be done with or without photoshop.... like a news story about a car accident where children are hurt and someone throws a big stuffed animal into the scene to try to make it a tear-jerker.

If the altered picture is so silly as to be unbelievable, I can accept that it is in good fun, but not the sneaky ones that attempt to deceive.

For example, big storm and flooding hits New York... Photos start to appear like the shark swimming in the subway and on flooded streets.... those are attempts to deceive. The one of the Statue of Liberty hiding behind the pedestal as a huge wave crashes against it or the ones of Godzilla are obvious fakes with no intention to deceive.

If I took a moonlanding picture, added something to the image like a wire, and started to claim that it was proof that the moon landing was faked in a studio, that would be an attempt to deceive..... while Lucky the cat in the picture is obviously not.


OMG!@!!!!!  I knew it...Cats do live on the moon......  :D
Owns 5Dmkiii, 6D, 16-35mm, 24mm 1.4, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, 1-600RT, 2 430 EX's, 1 video light

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #186 on: May 21, 2013, 02:27:42 PM »

Chuck Alaimo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #187 on: May 21, 2013, 02:30:43 PM »
yawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image?  For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself...  I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)

Disagree, I think both pixel peeping and photo ethics are perfectly valid subjects to discuss on a photography forum, even a rumors forum (since there are sections meant to discuss things other than rumors).  12 pages is nothing on here, some of the threads go to what, 30 or more pages?

I do agree that worrying about whether an image has been altered or not, can be more of a trivial waste of time, in this day and age. 

However, I also agree with Don Haines, because pictures with an intent to deceive, could very likely be done by some of the same sort of people who would use the IRS to gain political power, or perhaps even to begin "cleansing" a certain group of people...and I don't mean with soap!  "The end justifies the means..."

Agree wit hte former here...how many pages worth of endless debate are here regarding Dynamic range????  This is a nice change of pace actually
Owns 5Dmkiii, 6D, 16-35mm, 24mm 1.4, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, 1-600RT, 2 430 EX's, 1 video light

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1805
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #188 on: May 21, 2013, 02:32:23 PM »
You have to look at the intent.

The aspect of altering photos that gets to me is when a photo is faked to be misleading. It can be done with or without photoshop.... like a news story about a car accident where children are hurt and someone throws a big stuffed animal into the scene to try to make it a tear-jerker.

If the altered picture is so silly as to be unbelievable, I can accept that it is in good fun, but not the sneaky ones that attempt to deceive.

For example, big storm and flooding hits New York... Photos start to appear like the shark swimming in the subway and on flooded streets.... those are attempts to deceive. The one of the Statue of Liberty hiding behind the pedestal as a huge wave crashes against it or the ones of Godzilla are obvious fakes with no intention to deceive.

If I took a moonlanding picture, added something to the image like a wire, and started to claim that it was proof that the moon landing was faked in a studio, that would be an attempt to deceive..... while Lucky the cat in the picture is obviously not.


OMG!@!!!!! I knew it...Cats do live on the moon......  :D


Yea, and that particular cat doesn't 'arf get around - last week it was on safari  ;D

Chuck Alaimo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #189 on: May 21, 2013, 02:33:14 PM »
Quote
yawn... this thread is boring... I swear... worrying about altering an image?  For the love of god, anyone who thinks national geographic doesn't alter their images, anyone who doesn't think photographs in some way shape or form was altered at print competitions and fairs, anyone who things a simple head shot hasn't been smoothed, blemishes cloned out, filters applied, double chin and loose skin warped and removed... You are just fooling yourself...  I can almost guarantee you that the only images that haven't been manipulated in some way are those who have no access to photoshop, but then it can be argued even posing someone can be "altering" a natural photograph... get over it, it's not worth 12 pages on canon rumors discussing the "ETHICS"... my lord.... (then again i'd rather talk about this than some pixel peeping nerd debating the file quality of a 7d or 5d or such...)

i agree completely with this notion, as i tried to state before. i understand people who have not considered this topic before trying to hash out their position on this but it has been a longstanding discussion in photography going back to the late 1800's.

the fact is that photography is incapable of depicting "truth". it can only depict a singular viewpoint and "manipulation" begins the moment a photographer looks through the viewfinder and "chooses" what will be shown in the frame and what will not be shown in the frame. nevermind any post that occurs after the fact.

it brings to mind the images that came out of the aftermath of Katrina, in particular there was an instance where news outlets ran a photo of a white family "scavenging" for supplies while an almost identical photo of a black family doing the same thing had headlines attached stating they were "looting". truth in photography is a myth. it is simply a means of communicating an idea, story, or feeling and in the end it falls upon the viewer to determine what truths a photograph holds for them.

so if you want to subscribe to contrived notions of what makes a photograph real or true or whatever...you are welcome to it. i personally don't want to limit my own ability to tell a story how i want to tell it by applying a set of rules that don't make a whole lot of sense considering that manipulation has been inherent throughout the history of photography since its inception.

oh, an National Geographic is far from being the standard bearer for for what "real" photography is. on the contrary, it is a very narrow slice of what photography is and can be.

What is "truth"?  If you can answer that, then what is the meaning of life?


We've been here before Carl - The answer's 42  ;D

:D  Kudos!!!!
Owns 5Dmkiii, 6D, 16-35mm, 24mm 1.4, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, 1-600RT, 2 430 EX's, 1 video light

Chuck Alaimo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #190 on: May 21, 2013, 04:01:01 PM »
wow...so I'm gonna go ahead and add this wrinkle to the debate ---http://www.slrlounge.com/flickr-steps-towards-improvement-and-leaps-towards-stupidity

So apparently all this talk of ethics and what a true photograph is doesn't matter at all....truly disturbing...
Owns 5Dmkiii, 6D, 16-35mm, 24mm 1.4, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, 1-600RT, 2 430 EX's, 1 video light

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1513
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #191 on: May 21, 2013, 04:12:09 PM »
As long as the photographer is not entering a competition and not breaking its rules, to me it doesn't matter what the photographer does with the image, it is his image, his vision  ...as far as I'm concerned he can remove/add whatever he wants. Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.

+1

Times are changing. What was doctoring in the past is post processing now. The workflow has changed for the better...
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

Hobby Shooter

  • Guest
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #192 on: May 21, 2013, 06:05:30 PM »
My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?

The thing about this statement --for the most part...nat geo shots are carefully planned voyages (sometimes multiple voyages) to epic locations ---- EPIC LOCATIONS!!!!!!!! (and yes they do post process things too)...  I live in Buffalo NY, and while there may be some nice spots to shoot... other than niagara falls is there truly anything epic here? --- nat geo Epic????  I do not have thousands of dollars in travel budget...and my wedding and portrait clients don't have thousands of dollars to spend to have their wedding at the top of Mt Everest, or the jungles of Brazil, or deep in greenlands glaciers, or off in the magical hobbit land that is new Zealand...we aren't going to the tops of the Andes, not hiking through Cambodia, no sleek desert dunes of Tatooine (LOL...Tunisia), no engagement shoot at the great wall of China, no South African Diamond Mine, and not in a tribal village in New Guinea......I could go on and on but you get the point I hope.  Nat Geo goes to EPIC places!!!!! They also have the budget to wait out the weather if need be.  They also have the budget to go back if they wait 2 weeks and the weather doesn't work out.  They have their own submarines for crying out loud, subs, helicopters, planes, large boats....so yeah, Nat Geo can hold to a more natural approach...because they are generally going places that are so epic they don't need much manipulation.  Most of us don't have EPIC locations at pur doorstep, most of us are engaged in the art of pulling the beauty out of and or creating magic from a mundane scene.  LOL...  in the portrait/wedding world, it's like wondering why you handle a sports illustrated swimsuit model with full wardrobe and makeup crew differently than a plus sized bride at a budget wedding....
Just a note, Cambodia's countryside is not epic. Ive lived here three years and have yet to find those breathtaking views. Im actually out in the provinces now. It's 5 in the morning herre and me and my friend are going out in a while to capture the sunrise. Will see what I get. Vietnam is epic.

But I agree on your point.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #192 on: May 21, 2013, 06:05:30 PM »

Mick

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
  • Wildlife, Landscape and above all sport.
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #193 on: May 21, 2013, 06:05:37 PM »
In essance this is a pointless debate. Times are changing and whatever any one feels Photoshop is here to stay, adjustment is here to stay and whatever people such as me think, its a fact and wont go away.

Therefore the debate is a differant one, whos the better photographer, the one who captures the image in camera or the one who doesnt with the end point being more important." I can do what the photoshoppers can do, but can they do what I do?" I dont mean me but i hope you know what I mean. Its a general point.

A comment made on here alluded to the idea that those who ant that good with computer software are only a bit jealous as they arnt that good with the computer. Maybe they may not be good with a computer but are you any good with a camera? If you are such a great photographer, why do you need to spend days on your image? Is it really that bad, are you really so poor you need to spend so long adjusting it? Or is the new world of photography one where the end is more important than the original image do the dinosaurs need to wake up and smell the coffee and realise its a whole new world out there?

Its a debate with no answer. Technology has changed and computer adjustments are here to stay. I may not like the fact someone cant take a decent picture and needs a computer to to do a decent image, but i have a nice warm feeling that im a photographer but also realise im a worse graphic artist.

1DX, 1DMK4, 1DS3, 7D, 16-35 F2.8 mk2, 24-105 f4, 70-200 f2.8 is L mk2, 500 f4 mk2, 300 f2.8 mk2 1x4 and 2x mk3 extenders.

Chuck Alaimo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #194 on: May 21, 2013, 06:10:29 PM »
My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?

The thing about this statement --for the most part...nat geo shots are carefully planned voyages (sometimes multiple voyages) to epic locations ---- EPIC LOCATIONS!!!!!!!! (and yes they do post process things too)...  I live in Buffalo NY, and while there may be some nice spots to shoot... other than niagara falls is there truly anything epic here? --- nat geo Epic????  I do not have thousands of dollars in travel budget...and my wedding and portrait clients don't have thousands of dollars to spend to have their wedding at the top of Mt Everest, or the jungles of Brazil, or deep in greenlands glaciers, or off in the magical hobbit land that is new Zealand...we aren't going to the tops of the Andes, not hiking through Cambodia, no sleek desert dunes of Tatooine (LOL...Tunisia), no engagement shoot at the great wall of China, no South African Diamond Mine, and not in a tribal village in New Guinea......I could go on and on but you get the point I hope.  Nat Geo goes to EPIC places!!!!! They also have the budget to wait out the weather if need be.  They also have the budget to go back if they wait 2 weeks and the weather doesn't work out.  They have their own submarines for crying out loud, subs, helicopters, planes, large boats....so yeah, Nat Geo can hold to a more natural approach...because they are generally going places that are so epic they don't need much manipulation.  Most of us don't have EPIC locations at pur doorstep, most of us are engaged in the art of pulling the beauty out of and or creating magic from a mundane scene.  LOL...  in the portrait/wedding world, it's like wondering why you handle a sports illustrated swimsuit model with full wardrobe and makeup crew differently than a plus sized bride at a budget wedding....
Just a note, Cambodia's countryside is not epic. Ive lived here three years and have yet to find those breathtaking views. Im actually out in the provinces now. It's 5 in the morning herre and me and my friend are going out in a while to capture the sunrise. Will see what I get. Vietnam is epic.

But I agree on your point.

Ok...so as you can see there...never been to cambodia to know it's not epic...lol...
Owns 5Dmkiii, 6D, 16-35mm, 24mm 1.4, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, 1-600RT, 2 430 EX's, 1 video light

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #194 on: May 21, 2013, 06:10:29 PM »