| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/21/2003 12:33:57 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by paganini:
I think anyone can see the difference of what you have just said. If you shot a scene but excluding other stuff out, that's fine, because you're still shooting a scene/nature that is there. I'd have just the same complaint if someone KILLS three butterflies and place them this way (in turn representing that they're alive), versus using fake ones.
The problem with photographers introducing elements and present it as such is that people are already complaining about how "fake" a photograph looks, even though it's a real scene and none of the elements are introduced artificially. It's like the famous Rowell photograph of the Rainbow out of the Lhasa palace, he got a lot of rude comments saying it's FAKE because, guess what, lots of other photoraphers in the past HAVE done fake manipulation of the images and present it like it was there before. Making fake images of nature is a real disservice. But hey, if you don't like my comments, you can just ignore it :) You don't have to bring it to a public forum. |
Its an interesting thing to consider though. I don't know that it really applies in this case because I'd be surprised that anyone really believe this was real in the first place.
But for nature photography in general the line for which some people consider it 'cheating' or not 'real' is not always in the same place. I've read opinions from very successful nature photographers who believe that even things that you probably do when trying to get a 'real' nature shot would be considered distorting reality and hence faking an image. If it isn't exactly as found it isn't real sums it up fairly succinctly.
So no brushing dirt from the subject. You certainly can't move the blades of grass in the composition. (this sounds more like golf than photography to me)
At the other extreme, people like Adams are held up as great realists, yet pulled down tree branches that were in the way or adjust the scene no end in the darkroom to enable their personal vision.
Then there are the guys who set fire to national parks to get good lighting.
Sure you can wave your hands and say 'its obvious to anyone what the differences are' but these 3 cases people obviously feel very different.
NG thinks its okay to move pyramids so I don't really hold a lot of faith in that magazine for realism, but they do show damn good photography. All photography is a distortion of reality anyway - nobody sees the way a camera lens does, nobody sees the way film or sensor records reality. The line of 'acceptable deception' is not an absolute in nature photography, documentary photography or anywhere else. |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 12:39:56 PM · #27 |
I was once taking photos in Zion Nat'l Park (where I'm going later today! Yay!) and I was taking a picture of a clump of grass on a sand dune. The scene wasn't very interesting, though, so I asked my uncle whether or not it would be okay to insert a pine cone for interest. He said, "as long as you throw it in while looking the other direction." I still think that was funny.
That's what I did, by the way, and it really did improve the photo! |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 12:47:53 PM · #28 |
I think that photography, like most art forms, is all about the finished product. We want to present an image that is appealing to the senses -- visually, emotionally, etc. If I were a sculptor, no one would care if I used some $100 carved-from-bone scooping tool or a popsicle stick to form the eyes of my masterpiece, as long as it is appealing in the end. In photography, I don't care if you move the grass, carefully place a pinecone, or whether your scene occurred naturally the way you presented it or not. If your final result appeals to me, you have achieved your result. It is all about achieving the effect you are going for.
As a disclaimer, I do think it's wrong to take a shot of a zebra in the San Diego Zoo and paste it into a stock scene of Africa and say it was there that you took the shot. But, if you are merely presenting your art work the way you choose, and not shooting for a news article or something, go right ahead. It is the final result that counts. |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 12:53:08 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
I was once taking photos in Zion Nat'l Park (where I'm going later today! Yay!) and I was taking a picture of a clump of grass on a sand dune. The scene wasn't very interesting, though, so I asked my uncle whether or not it would be okay to insert a pine cone for interest. He said, "as long as you throw it in while looking the other direction." I still think that was funny.
That's what I did, by the way, and it really did improve the photo! |
This is getting more and more like the rules of golf by the second.... |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 12:53:47 PM · #30 |
| But it might be fun to photograph your dog chasing cars and paste him into a herd of stampeding buffalo..... seriously though, for my humble 2 cents worth, my first thought of the orignal picture being discussed here was that they were fake butterflies and that it was a great image. Is it ethical? As long as NG didn't claim these were real butterflies then I would have no problems seeing this pic on the front cover. |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 12:54:35 PM · #31 |
The moving of the paramid was NG's biggest flop -- i think they have learned their lesson from it. It was for a covershot which they thought it'd be fun I think, then their readership really bitched about it.
This is probably the reason that their photographers still shoot slidefilm, which you can't manipulate in the darkroom much and people can't complain how they manipulate the images.
But we're not comparing apples to apples -- i think having the paramids moved is a misrepresentation. Shooting a scene and eliminating that annoying branch from appearing in the scene (short of cutting it down i guess) is fine. Increase saturation is fine, changing the HUE so that blue water turns red would mean distorting the scene and most people can tell that it's fake.
Anyway, people are complaining about me because i do have strong views on this and I have commented on a lot of photographs, not just on David's on the same issue, including the wildflower shot with the stem switched to BLUE (i thought it was a white balance issue as most AWB will do that, didn't know he purposely did that in PS, or my comments probably would've been more to the point). My biggest gripe is that we're already seeing a ton of manipulated images everywhere, not just on DPC. We're talking about special effects, etc. that for the sake of presentation, is used to change what was recorded. Put it this way: Let's say someone show you a photo of a snow leopard, which is one of the hardest animals to photograph in nature (i.e. non-captive). You'll probably think it's real and it's in a natural environment and you TRUST the photog's integrity for presenting it that way. Heck, the photog can call the print: "Leopard Fantasy" because any images of snow leopard IS a fantasy as it's extremely rare. Then you find out later that the print is nothing more than a composition of an original snow leopard PASTED on some another background. I mean, if we're going down this path, why even bother shooting nature? Why not just kill the animal, STUFF it and shoot it that way? :-)
Originally posted by Gordon:
NG thinks its okay to move pyramids so I don't really hold a lot of faith in that magazine for realism, but they do show damn good photography. All photography is a distortion of reality anyway - nobody sees the way a camera lens does, nobody sees the way film or sensor records reality. The line of 'acceptable deception' is not an absolute in nature photography, documentary photography or anywhere else. |
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 12:55:01 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by StevePax:
I think that photography, like most art forms, is all about the finished product. We want to present an image that is appealing to the senses -- visually, emotionally, etc. If I were a sculptor, no one would care if I used some $100 carved-from-bone scooping tool or a popsicle stick to form the eyes of my masterpiece, as long as it is appealing in the end.
|
Although you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, the current art world seems to largely disagree with you. Much of modern art that I've seen in the past year or so seems to be all about the process and almost nothing to do with if the final product is actually appealing or not. |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 01:00:26 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by paganini:
But we're not comparing apples to apples -- i think having the paramids moved is a misrepresentation. Shooting a scene and eliminating that annoying branch from appearing in the scene (short of cutting it down i guess) is fine. |
All I'm saying is that there are a lot of nature photographers who disagree with you on it being fine and think of that as being misrepresenting the scene too. You just happen to draw your personal line in a different place that's all. It becomes almost a religious thing as there is actually no right and wrong answer to it.
After all, if you don't use a 50mm lens you are distorting the reality. If you capture water with a long exposure you are distorting reality. If you shoot a humming bird with a really fast exposure and a long lens you are distorting reality.
Some think it is fine to cut it down, after all its in the way. Would it be better to cut it down and shoot the resulting scene, or clone it out in photoshop ?
People tie themselves up in their own personal ethical knots but it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to apply that to others. The only time it is actually an issue and not just a rant is when the person tries to pass it off as something that it is not, say in a nature publication.
Photojournalism is similar. Is it more or less ethical to delete someone from a scene using photoshop, or to move your camera position and exclude them from the composition ? In both cases you've distorted the reality of the scene by what you captured and how you presented it. In fact you probably give the same effect, but one is thought of as ethical and the other is not. |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 01:11:27 PM · #34 |
To be honest, Pag picked the wrong picture to use as an example. I understand his dismay about distorting the truth in nature. This shot does nothing to prove his point. Its obviously fake ( again- a blue monarch butterfly ? ) It was entered into a color challenge, to represent color, the underlying theme here for this assignment.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 01:17:58 PM · #35 |
it's a valid topic (image manipulation and disclosure) when discussing journalism and journalistic standards but it doesn't have anything to do with this art shot ...
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 02:36:22 PM · #36 |
What reality am I disturbing when I use a long lens? The bird is there, isn't it? The viewpoint is narrower, but the bird is there.
It's a huge difference between using lenses and viewpoints VERSUS PLACING artificial objects or subjects that aren't in the scene originally. If you for example, avoid the branch by moving to another location, you are still using a VIEWPOINT, you're not disturbing the scene. However, if you place a rabbit in the photograph in Photoshop, then you are destroying the original scene. Viewing it from a different angle isn't distorting what is already there. Zooming it, doesn't distort what is there (if you were closer, you'd see the same thing, that's all). But placing artifical objects or moving and cut and paste of objects/subjects is distorting.
I think you'd be very surprised the number of nature photographers who would agree with me on this. I doubt any of them would like it next time they shot something and the viewer goes "Hey, didn't you just put that xxxx in there via photoshop, like THIS other guy?"
My problem with David's shot is just that - he misrepresented nature (butterflies) in a seemingly-natural scene. My previous comparison -- if he were to kill the butterflies and then put them through taxidermy and then place them there, would it not be the same? You can argue that David's photograph is great because he can simulate reality to such a degree that unless you really look at it, at first glance it'll appear to be real or at least "too good to be true". I have no problem with how "good it looks" but I do have problem with how it is presented as if it's shot in nature.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
But we're not comparing apples to apples -- i think having the paramids moved is a misrepresentation. Shooting a scene and eliminating that annoying branch from appearing in the scene (short of cutting it down i guess) is fine. |
All I'm saying is that there are a lot of nature photographers who disagree with you on it being fine and think of that as being misrepresenting the scene too. You just happen to draw your personal line in a different place that's all. It becomes almost a religious thing as there is actually no right and wrong answer to it.
After all, if you don't use a 50mm lens you are distorting the reality. If you capture water with a long exposure you are distorting reality. If you shoot a humming bird with a really fast exposure and a long lens you are distorting reality.
Some think it is fine to cut it down, after all its in the way. Would it be better to cut it down and shoot the resulting scene, or clone it out in photoshop ?
People tie themselves up in their own personal ethical knots but it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to apply that to others. The only time it is actually an issue and not just a rant is when the person tries to pass it off as something that it is not, say in a nature publication.
Photojournalism is similar. Is it more or less ethical to delete someone from a scene using photoshop, or to move your camera position and exclude them from the composition ? In both cases you've distorted the reality of the scene by what you captured and how you presented it. In fact you probably give the same effect, but one is thought of as ethical and the other is not. |
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 02:43:35 PM · #37 |
I look at photographs... i don't speculate about HOW they were done unless that was teh objective of the photographer... I try to enjoy it for what it is...
The photo in question here is not even presented as a 'nature' photo and I'm still totally in the dark about why this debate is happening... lol
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 02:44:37 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by paganini:
What reality am I disturbing when I use a long lens? The bird is there, isn't it? The viewpoint is narrower, but the bird is there.
I think you'd be very surprised the number of nature photographers who would agree with me on this. I doubt any of them would like it next time they shot something and the viewer goes "Hey, didn't you just put that xxxx in there via photoshop, like THIS other guy?"
|
I wouldn't be surprised. I'm saying that there are a significant number who think that what you find acceptable, to be unacceptable distortions of reality.
The point is, the ethical level of manipulation is a personal belief rather than an absolute. What you find acceptable, many people think of unethical misrepresentations. What you see here as a 'more than blasphemous' is an obvious fake, for the sake of a photograph with interesting colour. It doesn't pretend to be real. I find it hard to believe that many people who give it more than 2 seconds of thought would believe it was real.
You make a generally interesting ethical point about reality in photography, but this isn't the picture that it makes sense to berate.
Lens choice makes a huge different in the scene. It isn't just viewpoint that varies with lens effects. These are also ethical choices that can be made.
Message edited by author 2003-05-21 14:46:31. |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 02:46:27 PM · #39 |
i might worry about david's shot if a) it was a nature challenge, b) it was a photojournalism challenge, c) there was money or other concrete winnings involved but, it was none of the above: it was a 'color' challenge and he did a whimsical imaginative picture involving colors. the butterfly aspect was merely incidental.
and if he fooled some people, and thus got a good score, more power to him, since it wasn't in any rules that he couldnt do that :).
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 03:18:07 PM · #40 |
IMO, there's a big difference between "faking" an image in order to present it as nature, and to "fake" it in order to produce an interesting photo. The question about the ethical aspect is a valid question, but I can't agree about it being wrong.
I compare it to telling a person to do something in a photo. The subject might do something that he/she normally does, but it's still staged.
I'm not saying it's a good comparison, but that's the way I feel about it. |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 03:30:19 PM · #41 |
I think that from now on everyone that takes a picture that has any fake elements in them should post a disclaimer with their photos like: The butterflies in this photograph are fake; any resemblence to real butterflies, living or dead, is purely coincidental. :)
Message edited by author 2003-05-21 15:52:51.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 03:53:45 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by paganini:
But we're not comparing apples to apples --
Put it this way: Let's say someone show you a photo of a snow leopard, which is one of the hardest animals to photograph in nature (i.e. non-captive). You'll probably think it's real and it's in a natural environment and you TRUST the photog's integrity for presenting it that way. Heck, the photog can call the print: "Leopard Fantasy" because any images of snow leopard IS a fantasy as it's extremely rare. Then you find out later that the print is nothing more than a composition of an original snow leopard PASTED on some another background. I mean, if we're going down this path, why even bother shooting nature? Why not just kill the animal, STUFF it and shoot it that way? :-) |
And neither are you (comparing apples to apples here).
Butterfly Fantasy (which I think is a fabulous shot btw) is obviously a staged photo. It is an artist's creation using some plants and a few props. How is this any different from a painter putting two apples and a loaf of bread on a table with a plastic wedge of brie so that it can be painted (or photographed for that matter) without the brie melting and running all over the table.
Photography is NOT truth. It is (in the case of digital photography) a digital representation of a collection of colored dots gained by pointing a collection device at something and pressing an electronically controlled button.
Photography IS an interpretation of our world as WE see it through the lens.
I "stage" photos all the time. I BUY flowers at Walmart to take pictures of because 1. I like to photograph flowers and 2. They're easier to buy than to grow. Are my walmart flower pictures intentional deceptions? Am I walking a thin line of photographic ethics because I don't have a green thumb nor the time to always go to the Botanica Garden when I want to photograph flowers? I don't think so.
As for folks jumping up and down on your opinions...I think they're more offended by the tone of "My way is the only one, true and ethical way" than they are by any honest criticism you might offer on a photograph. I know that tone is what set my teeth on edge.
Shari
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 04:15:44 PM · #43 |
My 2 cents:
I didn't think he was trying to portray nature. A blue monarch?????????? Obviously staged. I thought he was trying to portray paper butterflies and (like someone else mentioned) fake grass. To that end, he did a great job!!
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 04:24:07 PM · #44 |
So you prefer fake images through your eyes? I guess so!
Originally posted by shareinnc:
Photography IS an interpretation of our world as WE see it through the lens.
I "stage" photos all the time. I BUY flowers at Walmart to take pictures of because 1. I like to photograph flowers and 2. They're easier to buy than to grow. Are my walmart flower pictures intentional deceptions? Am I walking a thin line of photographic ethics because I don't have a green thumb nor the time to always go to the Botanica Garden when I want to photograph flowers? I don't think so.
As for folks jumping up and down on your opinions...I think they're more offended by the tone of "My way is the only one, true and ethical way" than they are by any honest criticism you might offer on a photograph. I know that tone is what set my teeth on edge.
Shari |
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 04:33:40 PM · #45 |
"fake images"
It's not fake - it's a REAL picture of REAL paper butterflies. With the word "Fantasy" in the title. Are you TRULY this dense or do you have to work hard to get all this attention? I'm serious! We understand you have a problem with it - but your photoshopped image is not "natural" either. That isn't how it looked to my eyes! It's a fake! You faker! You hypocritical faking photographer wannabe!
Move along folks, nothing more to see here...It's like a bad car accident.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 04:41:18 PM · #46 |
I think this thread has outlived its useful life....
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 05:14:15 PM · #47 |
All photography is a misrepresentation of reality. It is simply an attempt to capture a moment in time. And, time does not stop, not even for a moment.
Kodak learned this in a series of papers that they offered in the early 1900s - light, perspective, colour, etc. They are a great learning experience on the subject of reality in photography.
For my two cents worth (or about 1.35 cents Canadian), it was a great image. Here is a copy of the comments that I posted...
What a wonderful picture. I wish that I took it. It is vivid, expressive, and fun. It is almost unreal. Are the butterflies real? Is it Photoshop? Wonderful work, regardless. 10 Morgan
...I may not have been as sharp as some of you to instantly decide that it was staged, so I asked. But, my grade was for a great image that jumped right off my screen. I find this debate rather silly when you consider how many images at the DPC site are staged.
Message edited by author 2003-05-21 17:14:49.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 05:20:01 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
Kodak learned this in a series of papers that they offered in the early 1900s - light, perspective, colour, etc. They are a great learning experience on the subject of reality in photography.
|
Do you have a reference to this series of papers ? Are they still in print/ on line somewhere ?
Message edited by author 2003-05-21 17:20:14. |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 05:23:37 PM · #49 |
Are you this annoying or couldn't you read the discussion? Do you have to jump into any discussion and call people names or is that your style?
Originally posted by mavrik:
"fake images"
It's not fake - it's a REAL picture of REAL paper butterflies. With the word "Fantasy" in the title. Are you TRULY this dense or do you have to work hard to get all this attention? I'm serious! We understand you have a problem with it - but your photoshopped image is not "natural" either. That isn't how it looked to my eyes! It's a fake! You faker! You hypocritical faking photographer wannabe!
Move along folks, nothing more to see here...It's like a bad car accident. |
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 05:33:15 PM · #50 |
a) I read it and you didn't reply to the fact that your image is photoshopped, which is unnatural.
b) I jumped in quite early (before you even replied to this thread).
c) Yes, this is my style. So I happen to prefer pointing out the obvious. A flaw, I know, but one I can't help. Isn't it my opinion whether or not your shot is 'fake'? Aren't I entitled to the opinion that you couldn't find coherency with two hands?
M
|
|
