| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/04/2004 12:23:36 PM · #1 |
Bellows
Message edited by author 2004-03-04 21:30:24. |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 12:55:14 PM · #2 |
| I totally agree. Thanks for sharing. |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 01:05:02 PM · #3 |
I somewhat agree....photo altering has been going on for a very long time, it was just a little bit harder before digital cameras and scanners.
James
|
|
|
|
03/04/2004 01:18:17 PM · #4 |
i like the picture of niagara falls on the back wall.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2004 01:21:24 PM · #5 |
I agree with this article. I was in fact opposed to allowing advanced editting for the challenges. While I think there is not harm in doing a little spot editting here and there, there's always people who will take it to the extreme and totally change an image like the one chosen in the article. I personally do little spot editting. My PSing consist of fixing levels, contrast and color. Sometimes I convert to B&W or Sepia and maybe the RGB curves. I did try placing the sky in a picture because it was too dull and although I liked the result, it didn't look natural to me, maybe it was just because I knew what the picture really looked like. Anyway, that's my two cents.
June
|
|
|
|
03/04/2004 01:29:06 PM · #6 |
You have to look at the situation at hand. If im out shooting documentary photos for National Geographic, then yes, extreme editing is bad.
If Im shooting pictures for a web based contest, where Im asked to meet a challenge and make an interesting, "wowser" of a photo, then editing ( by the rules ) is fine.
The 2 examples are not related.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2004 01:33:56 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by scab-lab:
You have to look at the situation at hand. If im out shooting documentary photos for National Geographic, then yes, extreme editing is bad.
If Im shooting pictures for a web based contest, where Im asked to meet a challenge and make an interesting, "wowser" of a photo, then editing ( by the rules ) is fine.
The 2 examples are not related. |
indeed/agreed |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 01:58:04 PM · #8 |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 02:09:56 PM · #9 |
| FWIW, the sample picture (shark and helecopter), as well as the examples they gave, such as replacing the sky, are illegal even in the advanced editing, since they involve more than one source photo. |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 02:12:50 PM · #10 |
I have no problem with people modifying an image to make it more appealing, dramatic, artistic, of whatever, as long as they are honest about it and not, as the article implies, trying to hoax someone. This has been going on for as long as there have been cameras. Digital photography only added to the range of possible modifications and made it much easier to do.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2004 02:45:45 PM · #11 |
This is bound to become a very important discussion to those of us who pursue “real” photography. By that I mean photography as a means of documenting reality whether it is for artistic means, journalistic means or even legal means. Today in sophisticated labs it is just barely possible to detect well-done combinations and manipulations of images. Tomorrow, it may well be impossible.
I have no problem with photo-manipulations for artistic or even humorous purposes. Picasso did a great job of that with his art. I wish I could find some of the filters he used for his minds eye. (maybe not).
I think this is an important subject and deserves some serious discussions among us and other photographers as well as technical people who might propose solutions that can help to lend assured credibility of our efforts. I think dpchallenge is helping with its approach to editing restrictions and verification requirements but we need to consider the not-to-distant future when a picture may no longer be worth 1,000 words.
Dick
|
|
|
|
03/04/2004 02:56:40 PM · #12 |
| And if you search for such a topic, you'll see that it has been discussed at length here in the forums! |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 03:06:53 PM · #13 |
Ok.. so what?
I mean, I find the article of Keith Bellows absolutely well done and integer in its own scope which he clearly states at the end of the article itself:
===================
So count on us to show the world as it is, not as we might like it to be.
===================
He perfectly captured the spirit of classic photography assuming that its spirit is: "to show the world as it is".
If we include in this conversation "Digital Photography" and "PhotoArt" I believe that is perfectly legitimate to ask ourselves if they should limit themselves to the same scope.
I do not think that we should limit the scope of these new disciplines only because of what the scope of (original) Photography has been and still is.
And, of course, it is just my opinion. |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 03:24:29 PM · #14 |
| Discussed maybe Eddy. Solved?? I doubt it. |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 03:27:06 PM · #15 |
| This always cracks me up. Does that mean that NG is only going to print one of Ansel's (or anubody elses) images from the raw negative with out dodging and burning? And enhancing sunsets? Are they going to limit the contest to only EPN? 'Cuz velvia doesn't give you an accurate depiction of colors... |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 03:42:47 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by dickwilhelm:
Discussed maybe Eddy. Solved?? I doubt it. |
I doubt that any long-term solution is even possible. With enough effort any image, film or digital, can be faked, and faked so well that identification is impossible. Film is probably more difficult, simply because of the materials involved. Since digital images exist as computer files, all that is required is to create the correct arrangement of bits in a file. Any other data attached to the image, for instance EXIF, can be manipulated just as easily.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2004 04:09:16 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by dickwilhelm:
Discussed maybe Eddy. Solved?? I doubt it. |
Nope, wasn't trying to imply it was solved. Just trying to show that the topic has been discussed profusely here on DPC... =] |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 04:11:26 PM · #18 |
does a digital camera give an accurate depiction of 'reality'? No!
The output of a digital cam is a whole series of processing choices made by the programmers and designers of that camera. "Accentuate mid-tone values. Saturate reds. Play down blues." Etc etc.
Not only that, but neither digital and film see what the eye sees in terms of :
sensitivity to specific colors and
range of brightness/darkness values available in a given scene
Therefore, people enhancing their colors or tweaking their tonal values is MERELY an extension of what the software built into the camera already does, but with more PERSONAL control.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2004 05:12:41 PM · #19 |
Agreed magnetic9999
Keith Bellows posits a grossly oversimplified view.
There is no line to be drawn.
Even in adjusting aperture and shutter speed the photographer manipulates reality, drawing out something that the naked eye could not see. Doesn’t the use of a flash radically alter the world as it really is?
You could extend the argument to composition. Is it ‘false’ to use models, to reposition objects, to use lighting aides, to ask someone to pose, or wear makeup.
The argument cannot run: ‘All manipulation prior to releasing the shutter is real, but all manipulation subsequently is false’.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2004 06:57:53 PM · #20 |
| id have to agree w/ mag9999 there too. |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 09:41:31 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
And if you search for such a topic, you'll see that it has been discussed at length here in the forums! |
On-going discussions have a number of functions, including alerting newcomers to critical aspects of the debate and forwarding new views that may appear from time to time.
Two more articles, both from The Luminous Landscape discuss this topic and its ramifications further.
In Filter Ethics, the problem of consciously altering colour has;
"Many of my images of Australia use strong colours for their main impact and people used to seeing dull prints of their own holiday snaps have difficulty accepting this rich colour as 'real' or 'accurate'. They know that filters exist, and may have even used them, so the natural assumption is that filters were used and that the colours are in fact slightly suspect.
"Unlike painting, landscape photography is still seen as essentially a true representation of "reality". Anything which is (seemingly) faked takes away any perceived value in the work and the viewer feels deceived in subtle way. This will always be the strength and weakness of photography and that is why the use of 'filters' can be seen by the public as in some way 'cheating'."
The fact that what the camera actually records is different from reality anyway is made in Abstraction.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2004 04:46:25 PM · #22 |
While the post of Magnetic9999 makes sense to me, I definitely disagree with the following (regardless my love for digital arts):
Originally posted by budokan:
Even in adjusting aperture and shutter speed the photographer manipulates reality, drawing out something that the naked eye could not see. Doesn’t the use of a flash radically alter the world as it really is? |
However, budokan post was useful to me to make the line even clearer in my mind.
Keith Bellows article is pretty crisp and it is correct as long as it stays in terms of light sensors (or sensors of any kind for what matters).
Sensors register reality (as far as we can go with that concept) while post-elaboration tend to re-create it (or even better, they do not care of reality but just focus on the message - THAT is where the greatness of digital arts resides IMHO).
If the scope, then, is about capturing the real world as Bellows says, no wonder that classic photography is the real deal.
It's just about the scope, and I still do not understand why people (maybe even Bellows) make a lot of confusion among different disciplines.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2004 04:57:43 PM · #23 |
Photography has never been real.
The camera has always lied.
Even the idea of 'documentary' photography is false - a photographer frames a scene, includes or excludes parts of the scene that suit their particular bias.
However, various degrees of deception can exist. National Geographic claims to be a journalistic source and so should try to aim for a higher ethical standard than for example a web based art site that has no pretense of showing the 'real' image.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2004 05:00:36 PM · #24 |
On technical means for proof of original exposure, some of the new Canon DSLRs include signatures which will allow tampering of an original 'negative' to be more easily detected. This may be useful for legal usage. However, even for journalistic usage, ethics extend to well before when the shutter is closed.
The flag raising at Iwo Jima is a great example of this. Staging or restaging events for a good photograph is very common - is that ethical ?
|
|
|
|
03/05/2004 06:31:34 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
On technical means for proof of original exposure, some of the new Canon DSLRs include signatures which will allow tampering of an original 'negative' to be more easily detected. This may be useful for legal usage. However, even for journalistic usage, ethics extend to well before when the shutter is closed.
The flag raising at Iwo Jima is a great example of this. Staging or restaging events for a good photograph is very common - is that ethical ? |
Depends on you definition of is;}
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:12:09 PM EDT.
