December 20, 2014, 05:38:17 AM

Author Topic: Wrong Photography Ethics?  (Read 41314 times)

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3543
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #30 on: May 09, 2013, 03:16:49 PM »
All that is done before the shutter is closed, thus is taken as photography.

So it's okay to change the background before the shutter is pressed ("Please step over hear for a better background to this shot") but not after?  What is so magic about closing the shutter?

Don't get me wrong or take me as too antagonistic--I get what you're saying, I'm just challenging the idea that there is something magical about pushing the button to capture an image.  If you're shooting a portrait in front of the Eiffel tower, you can buy plane tickets and fly over there and do it "for real" or use an Eiffel tower backdrop or green screen and composite it.  The only difference in the net result (if well done) is the cost of flying to Paris.  It's hard to get past the emotional push of the "true" or "pure" photograph, but again, if there is no discernible difference in the resulting photo, what is the justification for the hassle and expense?

The camera captured the image as it was through the lens, That is Photography. Editing and tweaking is allowed, but adding element that were not there invalidates that.

Compositing Images into a new image is Digital Art. It just as valid and can be more awe-inspiring but it's not photography.

IE: This image is Digital art, Not Photography.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #30 on: May 09, 2013, 03:16:49 PM »

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1329
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #31 on: May 09, 2013, 03:22:54 PM »
All that is done before the shutter is closed, thus is taken as photography.

So it's okay to change the background before the shutter is pressed ("Please step over hear for a better background to this shot") but not after?  What is so magic about closing the shutter?

Don't get me wrong or take me as too antagonistic--I get what you're saying, I'm just challenging the idea that there is something magical about pushing the button to capture an image.  If you're shooting a portrait in front of the Eiffel tower, you can buy plane tickets and fly over there and do it "for real" or use an Eiffel tower backdrop or green screen and composite it.  The only difference in the net result (if well done) is the cost of flying to Paris.  It's hard to get past the emotional push of the "true" or "pure" photograph, but again, if there is no discernible difference in the resulting photo, what is the justification for the hassle and expense?

The camera captured the image as it was through the lens, That is Photography. Editing and tweaking is allowed, but adding element that were not there invalidates that.

Compositing Images into a new image is Digital Art. It just as valid and can be more awe-inspiring but it's not photography.

IE: This image is Digital art, Not Photography.
I'll buy that, so it combines both genres, is it Artography?  :)
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-105L, 16-35L IS, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, Samy 14mm 2.8,  600 EX-RT, 580EX II, 430EX II, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

RGF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1323
  • How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #32 on: May 09, 2013, 03:27:57 PM »
I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.

Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.

Am very confused. I have made changes but not altered nature. Have I done something wrong?

Thx

Yes you did alter nature - the sky is part of nature.

Did you do anything wrong?  What are you claiming?  If you are claiming that is the image you took, yes you are being dishonest.  If you present the picture as "art" and you can sleep at night, then you did nothing wrong.

Bottom line - two thing IMO are important.  Are you being honest about the image (if you don't claim it was as shown in the 2nd print you are fine) - but you decide where to draw the line?  And can you sleep at night?

rawbphoto

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #33 on: May 09, 2013, 03:29:38 PM »
Compositing isn't necessarily 'digital art'...may I present from 1946 http://www.creativepro.com/content/scanning-around-gene-old-way-photo-retouching

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3326
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #34 on: May 09, 2013, 03:29:51 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.
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

Albi86

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #35 on: May 09, 2013, 03:30:32 PM »
I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.

Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.

Am very confused. I have made changes but not altered nature. Have I done something wrong?

Thx

That's an interesting question.

The way I see it, photography is cheating. By its own definition. It's about offering a fragment of reality from a perspective that you choose, carrying a visual message that you choose. It's not different from fiction, theatre, music, dance etc. If someone expect a pic to be a faithful reproduction of reality it's his problem, because it's like watching Harry Potter and thinking that Hogwarts actually exists.

Retouching is retouching. Making a composite, IMHO, is not ethically different from smoothening someone's skin, removing blemishes, saturating colors, etc.

You are either a purist that doesn't touch his RAW files (and who would want that?), or when you start compromising and editing then the acceptable limit of that is debatable. It actually becomes a mere matter of making sensible, tasteful retouches.

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #36 on: May 09, 2013, 03:42:14 PM »
I much prefer the altered image. I'm not sure the clouds were *needed*, but I like them and all the other changes, including the removal of those ugly, distracting, scruffy bushes/trees.  Cheating? Sure, if the sole point of taking a photograph is to show what you were able to make of the scene in front of you using nothing but your ability to interact with a particular lens/camera combination. 

Part of me wants to say that displaying skill/technique is part of the point of the exercise, and that adding interesting subjects and removing boring/ugly ones is as "wrong" as a recording where a pianist who hits 97 wrong notes is able to "fix" it by splicing in correct ones, or where a famous soprano's (Flagstad) high Cs were in fact sung by someone else (Schwarzkopf) and dubbed in.

Another part of me, though, wants to say that photography is different.  Leaving aside honest/accurate reporting, photography is inherently deceptive/manipulative - if you can't "improve" on reality, why bother photographing it in the first place?  The real thing looks better than any attempt at providing a neutral report of it.  For many photographers, the best lenses are those which allow the shallowest depth of field.  Why do we want them?  So we can distort reality and make it appear that the subject is surrounded, not by distracting or ugly details, but by smears of light and colour.  The same is true of wide angle lenses and long telephoto lenses - we want the distortions they provide.  Compared to what all these lenses do, removing a few ugly bushes after the fact seems rather trivial. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #36 on: May 09, 2013, 03:42:14 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15213
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #37 on: May 09, 2013, 03:44:47 PM »
I heard something on the radio yesterday - along the lines of techno electro pop fusion. It was created de novo on a computer, no instruments were used at all.  The DJ called it a song. I bet if I'd Shazam'd it, I'd have found it on iTunes.  Was it music?  Is the person who produced it a musician or a programmer?  Does it matter? 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #38 on: May 09, 2013, 03:55:25 PM »
Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.

He didn't ask whether the results of his manipulations met some definition of "photograph" but whether the manipulations he performed were unethical.  Are you saying that he can manipulate all he wants so long as he doesn't call the results "photographs"?

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3543
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #39 on: May 09, 2013, 03:59:34 PM »
Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.

He didn't ask whether the results of his manipulations met some definition of "photograph" but whether the manipulations he performed were unethical.  Are you saying that he can manipulate all he wants so long as he doesn't call the results "photographs"?

Their nice artwork to me, but I couldn't consider them photographs anymore. That's just my take on this subject...

thepancakeman

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 457
  • If at first you don't succeed, don't try skydiving
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #40 on: May 09, 2013, 04:01:24 PM »
The camera captured the image as it was through the lens, That is Photography. Editing and tweaking is allowed, but adding element that were not there invalidates that.
IE: This image is Digital art, Not Photography.

Okay, I think I've got it.  When I take a picture of a model in a bikini in front of a beech backdrop with an industrial fan blowing her hair and her head slightly turned to hide the hideous birthmark on her face and holding in her slightly out of shape gut, that's photography (and therefore honest/true) because it came thru the lens, right?

As a side note, the world has always been in color, which has always passed thru the lens, so by this definition black and white photography has never been actual photography.

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3543
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #41 on: May 09, 2013, 04:04:52 PM »
The camera captured the image as it was through the lens, That is Photography. Editing and tweaking is allowed, but adding element that were not there invalidates that.
IE: This image is Digital art, Not Photography.

Okay, I think I've got it.  When I take a picture of a model in a bikini in front of a beech backdrop with an industrial fan blowing her hair and her head slightly turned to hide the hideous birthmark on her face and holding in her slightly out of shape gut, that's photography (and therefore honest/true) because it came thru the lens, right?

As a side note, the world has always been in color, which has always passed thru the lens, so by this definition black and white photography has never been actual photography.

 _
 ( ((
  \ =\
 __\_ `-\
(____))(  \----   
(____)) _ 
(____))
(____))____/----
Thumbs Up Man! You got it.

The light went through the lens and hit whatever sensor/film you had.

Apop

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
    • Apophoto
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #42 on: May 09, 2013, 04:09:14 PM »
But it will be fabricated , it's quite hard to have 3 cheetah's pose like that in the wild ;)
I like gerryvanderwalt's view on processing nature images


https://www.youtube.com/user/gerryvanderwalt

Try The McGurk Effect! - Horizon: Is Seeing Believing? - BBC Two ( cannot find link to entire documentary, but : Is seeing believing? is a nice one from BBC horizon!)


The camera captured the image as it was through the lens, That is Photography. Editing and tweaking is allowed, but adding element that were not there invalidates that.
IE: This image is Digital art, Not Photography.

Okay, I think I've got it.  When I take a picture of a model in a bikini in front of a beech backdrop with an industrial fan blowing her hair and her head slightly turned to hide the hideous birthmark on her face and holding in her slightly out of shape gut, that's photography (and therefore honest/true) because it came thru the lens, right?

As a side note, the world has always been in color, which has always passed thru the lens, so by this definition black and white photography has never been actual photography.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #42 on: May 09, 2013, 04:09:14 PM »

thedman

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #43 on: May 09, 2013, 04:29:39 PM »
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.

Bingo.

Blanket statements like "compositing is not photography" don't hold up in all cases. HDR photos are composites of several shots. Are they not photography, simply because they were combined after the fact? You could have achieved the same thing if you used a grad-ND filter, so does using a filter mean the photo is 'not photography'? What difference does it make if you did the composite before the click or after?

Also, compositing doesn't always mean introducing something that wasn't there. The photo below is 3 different exposures, composited together in Photoshop. Point to the element that wasn't actually there.


Skulker

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 410
  • PP is no vice and as shot is no virtue
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #44 on: May 09, 2013, 04:46:19 PM »
If I can do it in the wet darkroom (cropping, dodging, burning, filtering) then it's completely legal; adding to or subtracting from the photo I feel are iffy, they take away from the art of photography...that's certainly not to say that I have not photoshopped hundreds of contrails out of beautiful blue sky...but adding objects that do not exist is a no-no in my mind.

I know a lot of people go with this. But to me it makes no logical sense. What was so special about the wet darkroom that means photography can't progress?

The idea that "because light has gone through a lens to hit a sensor" so its a photograph makes no more sense to me. Whats so special about that?

I'll bet Mr A Adams would be happily photoshopping away if he were here today.

To me its a case of I'm trying to make an artistic image. I'm not saying to anyone that I'm making photographs, I'm an artist using a digital camera and computer to produce images. That way i'm not misleading anyone.

Some people will think its all computer generated and that makes it fake, and easy. Am I misleading them because most of it is done in camera and the computer part is not easy at all?

Do what you want to produce the image you want. Be honest with people. That might involve telling people how its done in detail, or you could just say I don't disclose details.
If you debate with a fool onlookers can find it VERY difficult to tell the difference.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #44 on: May 09, 2013, 04:46:19 PM »