December 22, 2014, 06:25:51 AM

Author Topic: Wrong Photography Ethics?  (Read 41545 times)

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #135 on: May 13, 2013, 11:51:56 AM »
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.

Appreciate the encouragement.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #135 on: May 13, 2013, 11:51:56 AM »

jimjamesjimmy

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #136 on: May 13, 2013, 12:42:14 PM »
so what about staged shoots?  where people are placed and things moved around in the scene,  a famous one of these is the milkman doing his round during the blitz in london,a completely staged shot. forgetting the war propaganda for a moment, i wouldnt call that unethical, just a good picture.

the key here is subject matter, if your a photojournalist, no its not that ethical to photoshop aside from the basic levels, sharpness etc  but if your an artist, hell, there are no rules.

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5407
  • ... on superhero vacation!
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #137 on: May 13, 2013, 12:52:46 PM »
It's when you start adding elements not in the original capture, It's no longer photography.

1. I'm rather late to this thread (but it hasn't reached the flamewar stage yet :-)), but I agree with the "adding elements" argument from RLPhoto.

The reverse means that any global adjustments and even local adjustments via ACR are ok, so if the sky from the original image of the op would have been overexposed it'd been ok to pull it down with a grad filter in LR.

One thing I'm note sure about is "repairing" small flaws in the background with ACR, it really depends on how large the impact on the general picture is - and even small layer operations like removing closed eyes of one person from a group shot with the equal part of another shot directly afterwards might be ok.

2. One argument I didn't find here is from an ad with Julia Roberts that was forced to be withdrawn because it was so heavily "beautified" that it wasn't Julia Roberts anymore, and I think in France it was feared that this is what shifts the view of what a woman is supposed to look like to an unhealthy stage.

Imho the same applies images: If everybody does it, even near-perfect "conventional" photos will look crappy - so personally I never do masks in photoshop or add foreign elements, or I wouldn't consider it an old-school "photo" anymore.

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #138 on: May 13, 2013, 01:00:34 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.

I think you are saying it better than me. Photography IS cheating. AGREE.

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #139 on: May 13, 2013, 01:03:18 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.

Yes....!!! As photographer I want to present everything the best it can be. Regards.

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #140 on: May 13, 2013, 01:05:10 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?

Its true, it does not matter as long as it is music to the ears. :)

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1523
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #141 on: May 13, 2013, 01:05:44 PM »
This is an interesting article from Bryan Peterson on this issue. Thought I'd share

http://bryanfpeterson.blogspot.in/2010/06/every-photograph-is-lie-yet-within-that.html
1DX, 5D3, 600D, RX100
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 18-55 II, 55-250 II, 1.4x III, 2x III, 600RT x 4
The grass is always greener when you crank up the saturation in photoshop

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #141 on: May 13, 2013, 01:05:44 PM »

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #142 on: May 13, 2013, 01:10:00 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.

Thanks for the links - very nice! And I also enjoyed your website. :)

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #143 on: May 13, 2013, 01:10:37 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"?

:)

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #144 on: May 13, 2013, 01:11:51 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.

??? I will never ever believe that BW is not photography. NEVER. :)

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #145 on: May 13, 2013, 01:14:11 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.



Point superbly made...!

iMagic

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #146 on: May 13, 2013, 02:12:20 PM »
Some further discussion on the faked 2013 world press photo of the year......

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/155617-how-the-2013-world-press-photo-of-the-year-was-faked-with-photoshop

comsense

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #147 on: May 14, 2013, 07:18:44 PM »
Some further discussion on the faked 2013 world press photo of the year......

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/155617-how-the-2013-world-press-photo-of-the-year-was-faked-with-photoshop
I don't want to prolong the life of this thread. Just wanted to clear the tarnished name of poor photographer!
Before you rush to judge, there is always more to than meets your eye.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/14/183983184/photographer-defends-prize-winning-photo-of-gaza-funeral

I just happened to see this by chance and remembered a post here. Most of the time we never bother to dig deeper before passing the muck around....
« Last Edit: May 14, 2013, 07:23:22 PM by comsense »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #147 on: May 14, 2013, 07:18:44 PM »

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #148 on: May 20, 2013, 06:01:54 AM »
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.

I too fail to see why doing something in darkroom is legit and doing it digitally not! Yes, I like the idea about not disclosing facts, the lesser said about a photo, the better. A photo should speak for itself.
Thank you!

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #149 on: May 20, 2013, 06:05:43 AM »
This is the "I remember when......., things were so much better back in the day" argument. We are in today not in the past and today provides the tools to do all sorts of magical things. It amazes me how we torture innovators to desperately cling to the past. Turner, one of the worlds great painters was roundly abused in his day for his vision which was only reality as he saw it, now of course we recognize his genius. Surely photography is art, not just a representation or photocopy of the world around us. Manipulate your photo's however you wish and I for one will judge them purely based upon my own taste and not on others rules of right or wrong.   

Thank you Gary.
One day when there is technology greater than photoshop people might say 'its ok what can be done in photoshop and not in ....'.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #149 on: May 20, 2013, 06:05:43 AM »