July 28, 2014, 11:38:25 AM

Author Topic: Wrong Photography Ethics?  (Read 34742 times)

Hobby Shooter

  • Guest
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #195 on: May 21, 2013, 06:14:53 PM »
Haha, good one, I forget which movie that is from...Monty Python's "meaning of life" I assume?

So, the meaning of life...is Jackie Robinson?  Ok :P

Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #195 on: May 21, 2013, 06:14:53 PM »

Chuck Alaimo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 908
    • View Profile
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #196 on: May 21, 2013, 06:21:03 PM »
lol...sorry...but lucky looked lonely in the one edit.. I think he's happier now with his family...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

Hobby Shooter

  • Guest
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #197 on: May 21, 2013, 06:26:41 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...
Well now you know  ;D

TeenTog

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
    • Teen Tog
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #198 on: May 21, 2013, 07:00:37 PM »
[quote I have made changes but not altered nature][/quote]

Although last time I checked changing the sky is altering nature, If that's what you mean......
Rebel T3, EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM, EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6, EF 50mm f/1.8, 430EX II, Nikon EL 2, Assorted Nikkor primes

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 696
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #199 on: May 22, 2013, 09:32:01 AM »
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.

Steve McCurry's Afgan Girl (the most famous portrait / Nat Geo shot ever) was originally shot in a landscape orientation. It was an over the shoulder shot which he gave no thought to. When his editor saw it he "converted" it to  portrait by re-shooting the difference using a model and a room set up....and merged the two together. Most of his images are tweeked in some way (vignetting, dodge burn etc) by his editor. So don't think that all Nat Geo shots are a perfect in cam shots....some are quite convoluted and anything goes to get the shot.
Even the late great Ansel Adams used to do extensive post production to each photograph. So I don't see what the problem is here. How can we ask about purity and subject integrity where we are photographing a 2D representation of a 3D world. It's all representation of some sorts.

AprilForever

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
    • AprilForever.com
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #200 on: May 22, 2013, 10:26:41 AM »
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.

Steve McCurry's Afgan Girl (the most famous portrait / Nat Geo shot ever) was originally shot in a landscape orientation. It was an over the shoulder shot which he gave no thought to. When his editor saw it he "converted" it to  portrait by re-shooting the difference using a model and a room set up....and merged the two together. Most of his images are tweeked in some way (vignetting, dodge burn etc) by his editor. So don't think that all Nat Geo shots are a perfect in cam shots....some are quite convoluted and anything goes to get the shot.
Even the late great Ansel Adams used to do extensive post production to each photograph. So I don't see what the problem is here. How can we ask about purity and subject integrity where we are photographing a 2D representation of a 3D world. It's all representation of some sorts.

Even the choice of focal length and aperture are distortions of nature. You never "in real life" actually see what a 600mm lens sees, nor what a 10mm lens would see. The eye cannot replicate f22, nor can it replicate f1.0. Thus, photography reality is not as black and white a line as people would often indicate. We make edits long before photoshop.
What is truth?

dstppy

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #201 on: May 22, 2013, 09:17:11 PM »
Okay, call it people: this is the post that ends the discussion.

If you're not using a prime, you're faking photography.

There. I said it. Zooms are flat-out cheating, and have no place in the art.

 ;D ;D ;D
Canon Rumors is presently creating photographer shortages in Middle Earth (all the trolls emigrated here)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #201 on: May 22, 2013, 09:17:11 PM »

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1462
  • A Speedlight Junkie!
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #202 on: May 23, 2013, 03:25:23 AM »
Cause of Death ... "elegant forensic evidence that, although the camera cannot lie, photographs tell different truths" - John Hilliard

Quote
"John Hilliard’s ‘Cause of Death’ provides a useful textbook example of the ways the meaning of a single image can be altered by its cropping and caption. This piece of work demonstrates how meaning in the photograph is achieved by selecting the appropriate information. From a single negative, Hilliard has selected and titled four possible ‘causes of death’ that might explain the situation of a body shown lying on a beach. These ‘explanations’ have been captioned: crushed, drowned, fell, burned and gain their effect purely through the way Hilliard has decided to present the facts. The spatial relationship between each fragment and its frame indicates that each image has been cropped from a larger image, which (if ever shown in its entirety) would prove to be ambiguous. Upon viewing Hilliard’s work, we can not only discover that we may have been deceived by the four possible interpretations, but the way that they have been displayed provides us with the means to find out exactly how we might have been misled."
  (Copied from a book)


Every photograph is a lie and basically a representation of how the photographer wants to depict a scene. Does it really matter that the clouds have been photo-shopped?

Photography is an art form and with the continuous improvement in tech, the only ethics you have in this discipline are those which you choose for yourself.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 03:33:08 AM by J.R. »
Light is language!

RGF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1231
  • How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #203 on: May 23, 2013, 11:03:04 AM »
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

After all the comments what have you decided?  Are you a sinner  :( or a saint ?

AcutancePhotography

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 463
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #204 on: May 23, 2013, 11:30:48 AM »

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

The OP used the terms "cheating" and "wrong".  Those concepts only apply when applied against a set of rules/regulations/standards/laws.  None of which exist universally in photography.

Now, a specific competition, website, organization... may have their own rules and they can be as restrictive or as liberal as they choose.  You can only cheat/do something wrong when you try to break these rules.

Absent of any such rules or standards you are incapable of cheating or doing something wrong.  People may disagree or dislike what you choose to do to that photograph and that's ok. They have a right to their opinion.

You remember what they say about the worth of an opinion -- when you put in your two cents, people will only give you a penny for your thoughts.  :)

However, this topic raises an interesting and perhaps unanswerable question:  At what point does an image cease being a photograph and become graphic art?

Identifying the extremes is pretty easy.  We can all identify a picture taken with a camera with basic processing as a "photograph".  We can all identify graphic art from many examples on the Internets Tubes of some pretty wild stuff.  But where is the dividing line?  At what point, when I am dickin (technical term) with my image in PS/LR do I cross the line from having a photograph and start creating graphic art?

Well, there is no line, or more accurately, there is no universally accepted line between photographs and graphic art. Everyone has their own internal definition of the difference between photography and graphic art. Even if people seem in agreement, it is then only a collective opinion not a standard.

So the point of my ramblings is that you were not cheating nor doing something wrong unless you were submitting this image to some entity that has some sort of rules.  Of course that opens up a can o worms about implied or assumed standards, but we all know what happens when you assume something. :)
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light

Mick

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
  • Wildlife, Landscape and above all sport.
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #205 on: May 31, 2013, 06:15:54 PM »
 Cheating, manipulation call it what you will has always gone on in the past. That was the past we are talking now. Im not bothered what we do, if its adjusted, manipulated whatever. But..if you think you are a top photographer, post your images to Nat Geo with all your manipulation and see what happens. If people amatuers and pros alike can take amazing images without a computer ask yourself this. Why cant I ?
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.

serendipidy

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1272
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #206 on: June 01, 2013, 04:41:34 AM »
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

Only on the dark side. That's why you can't see them. They went there due to an unlimited supply of green cheese ;D
EOS 5D miii, EOS 7D, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii, 100-400mmL IS

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1442
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #207 on: June 01, 2013, 06:51:18 AM »
Cheating, manipulation call it what you will has always gone on in the past. That was the past we are talking now. Im not bothered what we do, if its adjusted, manipulated whatever. But..if you think you are a top photographer, post your images to Nat Geo with all your manipulation and see what happens. If people amatuers and pros alike can take amazing images without a computer ask yourself this. Why cant I ?

I see your point totally.
Am not saying that I cant take amazing photos. Some of my other photos have been liked by some people.
BUT this photo seemed to look better with the clouds. I had the option of leaving it just as is or adding the clouds. I choose the latter.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #207 on: June 01, 2013, 06:51:18 AM »

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1442
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #208 on: June 01, 2013, 06:51:59 AM »
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

After all the comments what have you decided?  Are you a sinner  :( or a saint ?

Hahahaha. Neither! I am a photographer! :)

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1442
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #209 on: June 01, 2013, 06:52:56 AM »
Okay, call it people: this is the post that ends the discussion.

If you're not using a prime, you're faking photography.

There. I said it. Zooms are flat-out cheating, and have no place in the art.

 ;D ;D ;D

hahahahaa

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #209 on: June 01, 2013, 06:52:56 AM »