| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2006 06:22:10 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by slide12345678:
absolutely cloned, water and all
fishy image --- click here
something verrrry fishy going on here... |
working off of your posting I over layed the two fish and did a little animation showing the changes (or not changes) between the two.
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=418394 (sorry for the link, can't seem to get gif to link right)
Yes they very well appear to have been clones but as Bear put it...what's the point? Still a great image and if I understand it correctly (since I haven't read the book) the point he was trying to make was that having the correct exposure can get you the good shot with all your main elements being exposed properly.
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 18:27:09.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 02:03:44 PM · #77 |
A week or so ago when this first appeared, I went to Mr. Peterson's website, availed myself of his "contact" link, and asked him to look at this thread and respond if he wished.
I was incredibly surprised to receive a personal email indicating that he would do so, but that he was out of town and it would have to wait until yesterday, Nov. 1, before he could be back in his office to respond.
I sent him a friendly reminder this morning that I hoped he would still be able to respond, and indeed he did. The miracle of the Internet, that a photographic nobody like myself can contact a genuine professional and be treated very decently.
I am posting his response at his request. I assume he did not wish to "join" DPC and thus respond personally here, but that might be for a lot of different reasons, and I don't question those.
I noted with humor that he chose to specifically give permission (at the end) to those of you who have scanned and reproduced his images via this thread. I think that's a very gentlemanly gesture in a situation where he has every right to request that we remove them, and DPC would honor that with no question. I think that move alone speaks volumes as to his attitude.
I digress, please enjoy the following contribution from Bryan F. Peterson, widely acclaimed photographic author and photographer....
Originally posted by Bryan F. Peterson:
I must admit I am flattered to be at the center of controversy, although I doubt seriously that this is the longest thread on the subject of âmanipulating a photographâ. And I must offer that this is NOT the first time that I have been called upon to settle a dispute over one of my photographs. In fact anyone who has ever attended one of my slide/talk lectures is well aware that I have NO problem with âmovingâ or âeliminatingâ objects in a composition, PRIOR to taking the exposure. It is what I call âartistic licenseâ or as I like to say in these slide/talk lectures my âbiblical rightâ where I am quick to refer to the Book of Genesis where it clearly states, âGod gave man dominion over the earthâ. Now I take that to mean, that I am here on this earth to clean up the messes left behind the devil and once I have successfully done that I can than present the Creation to my fellow man as God intended. (Keep in mind I am suggesting this method of âartistic licenseâ tongue in cheek.) But the fact does remain that I have and still do make subtle changes or alterations to a scene often enough that I felt compelled to address this issue in all of my books, beginning with the very first edition of Learning to See Creatively back in 1988. It was in this first edition where I told the story of shooting fall color at Silver Falls State Park in Oregon. I had found the âperfect leafâ and placed it upon the âperfect rockâ in the shallow stream and made the âperfect picture.â A few minutes later, several other photographers, (strangers to me) happened up this same scene and they were quick to comment to each other how ânaturalâ this scene before them was and they began to set up and fire off several exposures as well, yet at not time did I volunteer that it was I, who only twenty minutes earlier had placed the leaf on that rock.
I must admit I could have easily avoided this âfishyâ debate had I indeed done the right thing at the time and that right thing is to simply tell the truth. So without further ado, let me say that I did indeed clone in an âextraâ fish. The two fish in front were there on the one image you see in the book and it was in other images I had made during that quick sequence where I saw a single fish popping its head up near the rear of the bear.
And of course in that same frame where one saw a single fish popping its head up, the same two fish whom were seen popping their heads up in front of the bear were no longer there. As I viewed the slides on the light table, it was quickly apparent that the best overall composition would have been to have captured the two fish in front and the one in the rear on the same frame, but weâre talking fish here, fish who are being chased by a bear and there every move is really out of my control. It was than that I decided to exercise âartistic licenseâ and clone a fish near the rear of the bear to achieve what I knew to be a very likely event; three fish running for their life from the jaws of a hungry bear. I am guilty as charged of cloning in a fish near the rear of the bear that chose not stick its head out of the water at the same moment when two fish in front of the bear chose to do so.
Last week I was in New York when I was first made aware of the controversy surrounding this image. Part of my reason for being in New York was to discuss several new book projects with my publisher Amphoto so I did take advantage of the meeting to also report that in addition to the seven changes we need to make in the next press run of the current edition of Understanding Exposure, we need to add another. That âotherâ change will be to add to the current photo caption of the bear chasing fish something along the lines of the following: âAlthough there were two fish in my original exposure, I felt the overall composition would be better served by adding a third fish to the rear so I cloned âhimâ in via PhotoShop.â Honestly I want to thank everyone who has been part of this debate as I feel it has opened a door to a room where even more dialogue needs to take place between the âpuristsâ and us âphoniesâ. So, forgive me if I have more to say, but I want to make several things clear in so far as my position on image-making.
There is no doubt that every workshop I have ever taught, whether it be in nature, a city or even in an industrial location, you will sometimes find me willingly moving something in a particular shot to make it work and sometimes that something might simply be me. In other words, if I cant âmoveâ that distracting tree or branch in the background than I will strive to change my own point of view until my new point of view has eliminated the distraction. However when I am found âguiltyâ of actually moving a distracting leaf or bending ever so carefully the stem of a nearby distracting flower, a student may express shock or surprise. And why not, didnât I just manipulate a scene?
I have often asked these students who seemed most surprised if there was some rule they had read or heard about it, and almost without fail they exclaimed an emphatic âYes!â More often than not they learned from their local camera club or their Internet Photo Forums, âthat one must strive to look for and shoot only those compositions that are found in their natural state, otherwise, it's not real!â
Quite a few years ago, I was asked to be a judge in one of the local Camera Clubsâ monthly photo contest. I still chuckle about the experience today. The very people who were professing this idea about shooting objects in their natural state, were the same people whose slides were often covered in part by a slide/crop mask to improve the composition. The message I got from all of this was that it was okay to crop your image with a slide mask when it clearly improved the overall composition, BUT you would have Hell to pay if you ever moved your subject or âcleaned upâ the area around your subject BEFORE you made your exposure. That idea made about as much sense as putting a dirty diaper on a baby and then using masking tape around the edges to keep it from leaking. As I have often told my students, âThe real TRUTH of a photograph is in its ability to evoke emotion!â
It is my belief, obviously, that without artistic license we would not see anywhere close to the volume of photographic âartâ being produced by photographers today. Additionally a lack of artistic license takes away from giving credit where credit it due. Let me explain. If all of us were resigned to waiting for the perfect shot, where everything came together at once, where all that was required was to simply trip the shutter, who gets the credit for the resulting masterpiece? And to make this argument more interesting, what about those shooters who shot this perfect scene before them in manual exposure versus those who shot in semi-automatic or fully automatic mode; is credit only reserved for the full manual exposure shooter since he/she actually had to turn a dial or two before making the exposure versus the other shooter who shot this same scene in Program Mode? And what about those shooters who shot it digitally and than processed the digital image with Fred Mirandas Velvia âplug-inâ? Is this too not altering an image? Your bet it is and so are the many other methods we use such as filters, different lenses, reflectors and even tripods I might add e.g. you canât shoot a razor sharp image of a waterfall at a one second exposure without a tripod and we all know that a waterfall DOES NOT look like flowing cotton candy to the human eye, but thanks to our being able to âmanipulate the exposureâ we can in fact record this cotton candy effect of flowing water.
And what about those times when we turn the camera on our friends and loved ones?
Are we not âmanipulatingâ a photograph when we ask our subjects to turn a certain way or to simply smile? Hell, maybe it's not ânaturalâ to smile at that moment but most of us will still accommodate the request. Photographers all over the world frequently debate whether posed or candid portraits are more pleasing. I think that both types of portraits can be appealing when the photographerâs primary goal is to depict the subject as accurately as possible. Everyone has been asked to pose for the camera at one time or another, if for no other reason than his or her school portraFor most people, these shooting sessions were very impersonal, dating back to first grade I might add. These were in fact âposedâ portraits and by definition this simply means that the subject was directed by the photographer to move, stand or sit a certain way and/or tilt their head âthis wayâ or âthat wayâ and than the hardest part of all, âlook right into the lens and smileâ, all at the request of the photographer. (Today of course much of these âcookie cutterâ school portraits have given way to a greater degree of freedom afforded by the schools as the students are now able to choose the photographer as well as what they wear and where they wish to be photographed; within reason of course.)
A âtrue candidâ, on the other hand, is usually described as a picture of a person or people who were unaware that their picture was being taken, OR and this is where the debate gets really interesting, the person or people in the shot appear to be unaware that their picture was taken. In a âtrueâ candid the subject was not directed or told what expression to convey; they were just being themselves at that moment at that place in time. Unlike the âposedâ portrait, at no time was the presence of the photographer actually felt.
But what if the photographer is able to convey the idea of a candid moment, yet all the while the people involved were fully aware of his/her presence? Sounds like a great challenge to me!
For years we were led to believe that the famed French Photographer, Robert Doisneau had really captured a great candid of a couple sharing a kiss as they passed in front of his waiting camera outside a café in Paris. The image was and as far as I am concerned is still one of many Doisneau greats. But now we have learned that these are actually friends of his who repeatedly crossed in front of this café, sharing their kiss and warm embrace, while Doisneau sat and shot from the table he was seated until he felt he had the one shot he needed.
In Doisneauâs defense, it wouldnât surprise me to learn that perhaps on a previous day, he had in fact witnessed a different couple in a warm embrace, sharing a kiss, as they walked in a somewhat hurried pace past a café he was seated at. He didnât get âthatâ shot, but made a mental note of it and several days later was engaging the help of some friends of his to re-create that moment. And what is so wrong with that? Back in 1945 when he made that image of âKiss by Hotel de Villeâ, (shortly after the German occupation of French had ended), the streets of Paris were indeed festive and love was once again in the open air. It was time to be French again and that of course meant the open displays of affection had returned to the streets of Paris. So what if he âstagedâ a moment! The fact is he should be commended for staging it so well that no one ever raised an eye-brow as to it being an authentic candid for all these years. Staged or not, does it really take away from the âtruthâ of the image? It was an exciting and liberating time to be on the streets of Paris, a time to celebrate and Doissneauâs image captured the spirit of that moment for all the world to FEEL and SHARE in (Here is a link for those of you who are not familiar with the photo and also a story about the recent sale of that image for 155,000 Euros-yikes! (//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4481789.stm)
As I have said in my other books, every image is a âlieâ and if it succeeds this lie will be abundantly full of truth! And the origin of these âliesâ have their very roots in one of the greatest âmanipulationsâ of all, photographic composition! This is where âartistic licenseâ is perhaps most pronounced as the photographer makes a deliberate choice of what to include and what not to include inside the cameras viewfinder.
As you gaze upon the very tight crop of a childâs face, smiling from ear to ear you may perhaps feel her innocence and yet because the frame is filled only with her âlively and inviting spiritâ that is written across her face we are spared from the ârealâ truth that surrounds her. Missing from this deliberate composition is her house, off to her left, which is made of corrugated metal as well as the four starving dogs that are sleeping on the porch, hidden behind her head as well as the raw sewage that passes her house in the nearby ditch to her right; subjects that would no doubt detract from the subjects most angelic face. Yet this image is in fact filled with the âtruthâ.
It is no secret that in every course I teach at my on-line photography school (www,ppsop.com) I have little room for excuses as to why a student didnât get the crop right in-camera! It is in this one area, photographic composition, where I take a really firm stand and I welcome any and all challenges: I do ALL of my cropping in-camera 99.9% of the time! In this arena I am the first to call myself a purist! The last thing you will ever see me practice or hear me tell a student is this, âThatâs okay. You can always crop into the photo later to get the shot you really wanted!â (The exception to my firm stand on this subject was in my book Understanding Digital where, at the editors insistence, I had to endorse cropping via PhotoShop. Writing that brief bit of text felt like fingernails on a chalkboard!)
If you cannot get the crop you want in camera, than A)You are not willing or able to change your point of view-get down low, move to the right, move to the left, climb some steps or a ladder and look down, lay on your back and shoot up, or B) You donât have the right lens or C) you simply have not developed your eye enough to âseeâ the shot that lies before you.
I am sorry to have been so long winded on this so I want to thank all of you for indulging me and let me make it infinitely clear again. Where you will find me on the âdebateâ of a posed/candid portrait or a ânaturalâ/altered nature shot is simply this: if it makes me FEEL, (without being sidetracked as to its believability), than itâs the âtruthâ!
Obviously my intent to show the âtruthâ in the image of the bear and fish was not believable. However it was not because their were no fish in this stream nor was it because the fish donât poke their heads out of the water when they run from a bear, but rather it was not believable simply because of a bad cloning job. (Oh and by the way, I now have a job opening for a new assistant who can make believable clones-LOL!)
And speaking of cloning, and I am only offering this up in anticipation of the question: I clone every single last dust speck from my images and on occasion, (about 5% of the time I would imagine) I find myself cloning some distracting element that I failed to see when I composed the original image. And rarer still do I find myself adding something to an image via PS but if I have done so, I am the first one to tell you-most of the time!
Again thanks for your time and perhaps I will see some of you over at PPSOP.com!
All my best-
Bryan Peterson
(bryanfpeterson@mac.com)
PS-It is against the law by the way to alter, change, photograph, copy or use any copyrighted photo without the express written consent of the photographer who holds said copyright, and thatâs me in the case of the fishy photo, so to those of you who are guilty of said âunauthorized useâ, you will be hearing from my lawyer!
I now hereby declare, âOpposite Day!â which of course means âIâm not at all serious about the threat of suing anyone over the unauthorized use of my photograph.â And in fact to make this official, I hereby give my permission to those individuals who have already made copies and alterations to my fishy photo and posted them on this forum for the purposes of bringing clarity to the âstory behind this very fishy storyâ.
|
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 02:10:25 PM · #78 |
Holy....... he's wordy. :P
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 02:12:43 PM · #79 |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 02:23:29 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Holy....... he's wordy. :P |
He writes books for a living ... : )
Great post -- thanks to both of you for following up on this!
BTW: the use made here of the "fishy photo" almost certainly falls under the "Fair Use" doctrine of the copyright law, where a copy is being made for critical or educational use. But giving permission was a very nice gesture : ) |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 02:31:22 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Holy....... he's wordy. :P |
That's the truth, but it certainly was an interesting read. :D
Message edited by author 2006-11-02 15:44:18.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 02:36:11 PM · #82 |
Not crazy about the clone in a book that's about taking a photograph properly in camera, but I still recommend the book.
Funny that he thinks cropping is a no-no. Makes it seem like all our boundaries for acceptable photography are arbitrary.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 02:42:05 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Funny that he thinks cropping is a no-no. Makes it seem like all our boundaries for acceptable photography are arbitrary. |
I've discussed before with Bryan his views on cropping. He basically comes at it from the point of view as a professional photographer who is looking to sell his images. Cropped images don't reproduce as well as full frame images. Once you start cropping to 'finish' the image, you've started compromising the image quality and the printable size of the image.
Hence the desire to strive for full frame, non-cropped photos. Highest image quality, best chance at great reproduction, so maximum selling potential.
All the boundaries for acceptable photography are totally arbitrary. Who defines 'acceptable' anyway ?
Message edited by author 2006-11-02 14:42:37.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 02:52:19 PM · #84 |
I loved his purist/phony analogy.....maybe some of the anal-retentive, literal folks might even consider giving up their 'pole-vaulting over mouse turds' mentality.
I understand there are people that are just naturally detail-oriented/nit picky (my husband for one!)...but in my perusal of the forums I find that most (not all) of the ones that bitch about the purity of photographs the most are the same personalities that would bitch about being hung with a new rope.....just my opinion though :)
ETA: Just saw your post Gordon...excellent analogy on 'who defines acceptable'.
Message edited by author 2006-11-02 14:54:23. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 02:55:00 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
All the boundaries for acceptable photography are totally arbitrary. Who defines 'acceptable' anyway ? |
Whoever makes the boundaries! :)
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 03:04:08 PM · #86 |
I tend to agree with him on cropping. It's important to me to use the full frame, sometimes I'm not sure why, it just is. BUT... I make an exception for aspect ratio. Especially with the 20D and like cameras, which have very "skinny" aspect ratios. I tend to prefer more like 8x10 proportions, so I will fairly often crop in from the sides, but I had this in mind when I shot the image in the first place. And, of course, sometimes I want a square image, and you have to crop to do that... But I want to use ALL of the frame in at least one of the dimensions whenever possible.
One other thing re: cropping; the man pretty much implies that if it isn't cropped "right" in camera the photographer is lazy. Up to a point this is true, BUT what about shots that require a longer lens than you are carrying (or even own) and are worth the shooting nevertheless. Call it the "poor man's zoom" :-)
R. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 03:19:00 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I tend to agree with him on cropping. It's important to me to use the full frame, sometimes I'm not sure why, it just is. BUT... I make an exception for aspect ratio. Especially with the 20D and like cameras, which have very "skinny" aspect ratios. I tend to prefer more like 8x10 proportions, so I will fairly often crop in from the sides, but I had this in mind when I shot the image in the first place. And, of course, sometimes I want a square image, and you have to crop to do that... But I want to use ALL of the frame in at least one of the dimensions whenever possible.
|
I agree on that totally. Most images don't require, or even suit a 3:2 ratio. There's a 'right' aspect ratio for every scene, but there's no reason to assume it is the aspect ratio of the sensor in the camera you happen to be carrying at the time. But you should fill at least one dimension
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
One other thing re: cropping; the man pretty much implies that if it isn't cropped "right" in camera the photographer is lazy. Up to a point this is true, BUT what about shots that require a longer lens than you are carrying (or even own) and are worth the shooting nevertheless. Call it the "poor man's zoom" :-)
R. |
To be fair, he did answer that. Either A/ you've got the wrong lens, or B/ you aren't seeing the other opportunities in front of you :)
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 03:20:00 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Gordon:
All the boundaries for acceptable photography are totally arbitrary. Who defines 'acceptable' anyway ? |
Whoever makes the boundaries! :) |
and when you realise that it is you that makes the boundaries, you can start to really go somewhere interesting...
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 04:52:38 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
and when you realise that it is you that makes the boundaries, you can start to really go somewhere interesting... |
Definitely. It's the photographer who defines his own boundaries (or accepts those defined by others). The important thing is for a photographer to think about them and understand why they are needed and where they are for himself.
Of course, the viewer has his own ideas of the acceptable boundaries, which may or may not coincide with those of the photographer.
If you ask me, cloning that fish in a published photograph *without disclosing it* was a complete no-no. I have read two books by Bryan when I was starting out. I appreciate his response, but my respect for him has declined. It's easy to be honest retrospectively. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 05:20:05 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
It's easy to be honest retrospectively. |
But isn't it "more" wrong to keep lying???? |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 05:27:00 PM · #91 |
Another note from Mr. Peterson, probably in response to being called a "nature photographer"...
Originally posted by Bryan F. Peterson:
HI Bernard-
I apologize for writing back so soon as I know it was not your intent to be my middleman, despite your offer to do so, but when you have time, I would appreciate adding one other note on my behalf, (at least until I can find the time to come and join the party). I have not been a 'nature photographer' for so many years that its hard for me to imagine that I am looked upon as such by some of the photographers in the forum. In 1985 I turned my camera towards the 'Fortune 500 world' where for the past twenty plus years I have been actively shooting around the world, on assignment, shooting coporate brochures, annual reports and advertising campaigns. Many of my clients are high-profile clients, such as American Express, Kodak, Hertz and perhaps the most 'visible' client of all, UPS. I am one of their three photographers whom for the past 14 years, has produced the photography for their Domestic and International Calendars. It is only in my spare time that I find myself migrating back to nature where of course my camera is taken along for the ride and it is also at these times where I find much of the material that has been used in my books. Also, you will discover that my most recent book, Beyond Portraits, is about my ultiimate love and that is photographing people. Also I look forward, perhaps as soon as next week, in getting more involved, if need be, over at the forum.
All my best!
Bryan F Peterson
|
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 05:28:39 PM · #92 |
You think he is ready for DPC? LOL
:-P |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 05:52:40 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by agenkin:
It's easy to be honest retrospectively. |
But isn't it "more" wrong to keep lying???? |
To keep lying in this situation would be plain stupid, more than *wrong*. It's obvious to anyone slightly familiar with post-processing that the fish was cloned, from the provided evidence. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:04:59 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
You think he is ready for DPC? LOL
:-P |
I would expect many DPCers to treat him rather roughly, to be honest. I personally have learned more from his books than any other single source. Do I think he is or expect him to be perfect? No. He's just one of those photographers that I really envy (in a kind, friendly way) for his skills and success. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:08:52 PM · #95 |
| I have some of his books including the book in question and I to learned allot form it. He just said he might stop by the forum and I thought, oh boy this will be fun. I don't care that he did that. Do I feel lied too? No. Just thought he should prepare himself if he does stop by. LOL |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:13:14 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by agenkin:
It's easy to be honest retrospectively. |
But isn't it "more" wrong to keep lying???? |
To keep lying in this situation would be plain stupid, more than *wrong*. It's obvious to anyone slightly familiar with post-processing that the fish was cloned, from the provided evidence. |
Sure do wish you'd post some shots from that Hasselblad.
Message edited by author 2006-11-02 19:37:44.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:15:21 PM · #97 |
| As was pointed out (in the thread title), the book was on Exposure, not composition. It doesn't really matter whether he cloned in the extra fish or not ... |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:35:11 PM · #98 |
| Alrighty. Finally finished reading this rather long thread. I loved the sleuthing going on, and I loved the reply. Thanks for the laugh. As for cloning in a fish....*shrug*. no biggie to me. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:49:54 PM · #99 |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:55:19 PM · #100 |
Whoa...just read that whole thing for the first time. And I must say. Congrats on the ever-present critical eyes of DPC photogs. Congrats on the photographer in question on a lengthy and open discussion on his photo and theory. And nards, I disagree on one point. Not for one second do I think DPC would be harsh on him. I bet DPC would enjoy the knowledge and contribution from any accomplished photographer. But I wholeheartedly agree that is much worse to continue lying, than to be honest at any point. Good stuff guys.
|
|
