Is this photo real? - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/11/2007 03:20:32 PM · #51

What does it matter?

From the quoted press release:

"Naturally, the tourism bureau thinks the images will create a good first
impression for visitors.
"For people that have never been here before, we want to give a
sense of the destination as soon as they get off the plane," he said."

IT would matter to me if that sense of the destination were fake and there wasn't a hope that I'd see anything like that. If I found out, I might not ever return.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

10/11/2007 03:50:25 PM · #52

Originally posted by BeeCee:

It's NOT fake in that sense, if all the images are shot locally; there's just a lot of photoshopping going on. Look at it this way: if the tourism bureau used paintings of local scenes that would be fine right?

We are just nit-picking as PHOTOGRAPHERS, but the images are striking in their own right.

R.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/11/2007 05:56:41 PM · #53

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by BeeCee:
What does it matter?

From the quoted press release:

"Naturally, the tourism bureau thinks the images will create a good first
impression for visitors.
"For people that have never been here before, we want to give a
sense of the destination as soon as they get off the plane," he said."

IT would matter to me if that sense of the destination were fake and there wasn't a hope that I'd see anything like that. If I found out, I might not ever return.

It's NOT fake in that sense, if all the images are shot locally; there's just a lot of photoshopping going on. Look at it this way: if the tourism bureau used paintings of local scenes that would be fine right?

We are just nit-picking as PHOTOGRAPHERS, but the images are striking in their own right.

R.

Well, it just depends how they're portraying them. If it's simply as art generally representative of the area, fine. If it's as advertising of what you'll find on your visit, I'd definitely find it misleading.
If I photoshopped my seal at fisherman's wharf shots to make it appear that there were 40 seals, and led tourists to believe that's what they'd find on a visit there, I wouldn't consider that particularly ethical. If I did it as merely a pretty interpretation of local scenery and said so, that would be different, IMO.

Yes, some of the images are striking, as artistic pieces (some I find very tacky, but again, my opinion and irrelevant).

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

10/11/2007 06:03:30 PM · #54

Do you really think 98% of tourism photos realistically represent their subject?

I got no problem with these photos decorating an airport as advertising for the area. I got problems with the artist clearly lying through his teeth like a stooge. (Actually my main issue is just wrapping my mind around the question "Does he really think he's fooling us?")

10/11/2007 06:11:07 PM · #55

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Do you really think 98% of tourism photos realistically represent their subject?

Dunno, only know that my shots on Tourism Victoria's site and the one on their "destinational promotional material" do. Can't speak for the rest.

10/11/2007 06:25:09 PM · #56

Ah, truth in photography. You'd think us people with cameras would know that they always lie (if only by omission, rather than anything else)

10/11/2007 06:25:51 PM · #57

Originally posted by BeeCee:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you really think 98% of tourism photos realistically represent their subject?

Dunno, only know that my shots on Tourism Victoria's site and the one on their "destinational promotional material" do. Can't speak for the rest.

So you show the good, the bad and the ugly about the place ? Or just the carefully cropped truthful representation ?

10/11/2007 08:40:05 PM · #58

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by BeeCee:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you really think 98% of tourism photos realistically represent their subject?

Dunno, only know that my shots on Tourism Victoria's site and the one on their "destinational promotional material" do. Can't speak for the rest.

So you show the good, the bad and the ugly about the place ? Or just the carefully cropped truthful representation ?

Well, the discussion was about photoshopping to alter the shot, not about the choice of subject, and in answer to Doc, my tourism shots realistically represent their subject.

10/11/2007 08:44:43 PM · #59

Originally posted by BeeCee:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by BeeCee:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you really think 98% of tourism photos realistically represent their subject?

Dunno, only know that my shots on Tourism Victoria's site and the one on their "destinational promotional material" do. Can't speak for the rest.

So you show the good, the bad and the ugly about the place ? Or just the carefully cropped truthful representation ?

Well, the discussion was about photoshopping to alter the shot, not about the choice of subject, and in answer to Doc, my tourism shots realistically represent their subject.

Actually no, this branch is about tourism photos realistically representing their subject (the subject being the the destination location, I'd assume)

zxaar

10/11/2007 08:46:25 PM · #60

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by BeeCee:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by BeeCee:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you really think 98% of tourism photos realistically represent their subject?

Dunno, only know that my shots on Tourism Victoria's site and the one on their "destinational promotional material" do. Can't speak for the rest.

So you show the good, the bad and the ugly about the place ? Or just the carefully cropped truthful representation ?

Well, the discussion was about photoshopping to alter the shot, not about the choice of subject, and in answer to Doc, my tourism shots realistically represent their subject.

Actually no, this branch is about tourism photos realistically representing their subject (the subject being the the destination location, I'd assume)

agreed, this is what I also understood from the discussion so far.

cycleboy

10/11/2007 10:29:42 PM · #61

Originally posted by levyj413:

Originally posted by cycleboy:
They have to be altered. How about the one w/ the gull flying away. I'd like to see someone get close enough up behind a gull to get that clear of a shot.

Do you mean this one?
//www.alanmaltz.com/gallery/Airport/detail.aspx?page=31

I don't really understand your point - are you suggesting he drew the bird because he couldn't have captured it? Color me confused. With zoom lenses, too, you don't have to get very close to get a stellar shot of a bird. Besides, have you been on a beach? You can easily get within a few feet of a gull. Anyway,

Uhhh, yeah, I grew up and still live in SoCal, majored in marine bio, pretty much grew up sailing, surfing, diving, spearfishing etc, etc.

I'VE BEEN ON A BEACH!

I've yet to see gulls that will let you get closer than about 20-30 yards away before they fly.

What I find unrealistic is the combination of him being above and behind the gull and focused that closely on it. How could he get above and so close? As you say, maybe a zoom was used, but I don't see how he could get the bird that zoomed and clear and in motion, but still have the DOF to have a clear background to the shot too.

To me, it looks like he maybe got a shot of a gull flying away - standing on a pier for example. Then he added that to the rest of the image. I just don't see how the whole thing could have "happened".

Hell, maybe the guy sold his soul to Beelzebub in exchange for getting great photos nobody else can get?

My overall issue with it is presenting shots as a single original image when it does not appear they can possibly be. If he said something about them being artistic composite images, I got no problem.

Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX-DC HSM

10/11/2007 10:54:16 PM · #62

Originally posted by cycleboy:

What I find unrealistic is the combination of him being above and behind the gull and focused that closely on it. How could he get above and so close? As you say, maybe a zoom was used, but I don't see how he could get the bird that zoomed and clear and in motion, but still have the DOF to have a clear background to the shot too.

I think the title of that particular shot is quite telling too.

Shadowi6

Nikon D200

10/11/2007 11:14:52 PM · #63

Not that its a great shot ( Not that its too bad either :) but it does help illustrate that it is possible to get this type of shot.

Tomioka 55mm f/1.4 in M42 Mount

10/12/2007 12:50:28 AM · #64

The images are as real as any other photograph. Maybe more so.

Gabriel

Pentax K7

10/12/2007 04:30:26 AM · #65

Originally posted by Trumpeteer4:

Originally posted by Gabriel:
Well, there are several other suspicious pics in his galleries:

//www.alanmaltz.com/gallery/Airport/detail.aspx?page=11
...

Why do you think the second one is PSed?

The sky color doesn't feel coherent with the overall lightning.

ericwoo

Nikon Z7II

Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120 f/4 S

10/12/2007 05:20:53 AM · #66

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

The images are as real as any other photograph. Maybe more so.

What?

10/12/2007 08:01:35 AM · #67

Originally posted by ericwoo:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The images are as real as any other photograph. Maybe more so.

What?

At least these images exist in material form. Many images exist only as a bunch of 1's and 0's on a disk somewhere.

Apple iPhone 5

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

10/12/2007 08:09:43 AM · #68

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

At least these images exist in material form. Many images exist only as a bunch of 1's and 0's on a disk somewhere.

So does that also mean that music stopped being 'real' when digital mastering was invented?

rox_rox

Canon EOS-20D

10/12/2007 08:34:15 AM · #69

Originally posted by cycleboy:

The birds in FLA my be tamer than those in CA. The gulls here are pretty easy to walk up to. If you throw out some food, you may even be attacked.

Here are two shots I took with my point and shoot in Anna Maria, FL. Focal length was 23 mm. I could have gotten closer, but it's a rookery, and the birds are not to be harassed.

Straight from the camera:

10/12/2007 08:38:13 AM · #70

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
At least these images exist in material form. Many images exist only as a bunch of 1's and 0's on a disk somewhere.

So does that also mean that music stopped being 'real' when digital mastering was invented?

No. A piece of music and a photograph are two different things. Music is not and never can be a physical object. A photograph most certainly is. Notes can be written down on paper, but in order to exist, music needs only to be heard. A photograph can not only be seen, it can exist in tangible form.

Message edited by author 2007-10-12 08:40:19.

Apple iPhone 5

10/12/2007 08:44:56 AM · #71

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
At least these images exist in material form. Many images exist only as a bunch of 1's and 0's on a disk somewhere.

So does that also mean that music stopped being 'real' when digital mastering was invented?

No. A piece of music and a photograph are two different things. Music is not and never can be a physical object. A photograph most certainly is. Notes can be written down on paper, but in order to exist, music needs only to be heard. A photograph can not only be seen, it can exist in tangible form.

Ah.. You're saying that most photographs exist on a hard disk somewhere and never get printed? (i.e. this isn't a 'film versus digital' thing!)

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4.0D

10/12/2007 08:57:15 AM · #72

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
At least these images exist in material form. Many images exist only as a bunch of 1's and 0's on a disk somewhere.

So does that also mean that music stopped being 'real' when digital mastering was invented?

No. A piece of music and a photograph are two different things. Music is not and never can be a physical object. A photograph most certainly is. Notes can be written down on paper, but in order to exist, music needs only to be heard. A photograph can not only be seen, it can exist in tangible form.

Ah.. You're saying that most photographs exist on a hard disk somewhere and never get printed? (i.e. this isn't a 'film versus digital' thing!)

That and the fact that the whole debate over what comprises a so-called "real" photograph is senseless. All photographs are just varying degrees of unreality. The only sense in which a photograph can be real is as a physical object.

Nikolai1024

Nikon D300

10/12/2007 09:40:23 AM · #73

Originally posted by Shadowi6:

Not that its a great shot ( Not that its too bad either :) but it does help illustrate that it is possible to get this type of shot.

You using flash and creating completely shadowless birds. He has a distinct shadow that shows that lighsource is to the right.