NikonGear'23
Images => Life, the Universe & Everything Else => Topic started by: Mike G on February 01, 2016, 12:07:45
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35457135
This article makes not very nice reading, I'm afraid another brickbat for Nikon
-
Sad, indeed...
-
Must be BBC then ....
Came quite positive around in our press
http://derstandard.at/2000030135830/Award-fuer-schlecht-manipuliertes-Foto-Netz-spottet-ueber-Nikon?dst=www.facebook.com
See the images the shit stormers produced
and Nikon's response was positively covered.
Andy
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35457135
This article makes not very nice reading, I'm afraid another brickbat for Nikon
So, what has this to do with Nikon? And what is so 'sad' about it?
A composite is a legal approach to photography. Done thousands of times before and will continue to be conducted.
If the rules of a competition state composites are not allowed, then the onus is on the photographer not to enter. That's the gist of it.
Whether we believe or not in the story told by a photograph has everything to do with the trust we place on the photographer. Not his gear nor his technique. Images always lie. They are never the truth. It is the photographer that decides to stick to what he or she perceives as the 'true' story.
-
I completely agree.
-
To elaborate the above:
Have a look at my picture below. The story is true. There were planes flying over that forest clearing. I have eye witness to the fact the components seen in this photo occurred exactly like I framed them. But the record is done in IR so neither I nor the observers could see the scene in the manner it displays here. However, being pretty well versed in IR over the years, I easily could envision a final result like this being possible and that was what I was chasing for in the oak forest outside Copenhagen that bleak late autumn day. I decided the airplane was the detail needed to make the statement of the composition. I prefer to get everything of required material for a photo in-camera, but would not hesitate a split second to put a detail there from another frame if I failed to get it right. The photo is about conveying an idea, a visualisation of concepts, not about sterile perfection for its own sake.
It so happened that on the tenth attempt or so, all the components came together that day. Still I would have had the idea manifested in a similar photographic composite if not successful in the field. Thus, what is the difference?
-
Indeed...
-
Pretty sure that if you check the time stamp on those two files they match up pretty well ;)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/629/22914744054_1b10908618_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/AUU453)_EGL1568 (https://flic.kr/p/AUU453) by Erik Gunst Lund (https://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_lund/), on Flickr
-
I think the difference is that you captured what was there.
It is the skill of creativity and timing with which you chose to press the shutter button, as all the components were in place, that makes this a compelling image, along with the use of IR light. If you had just pasted in an aeroplane where none existed then I think your image would have less artistic value.
With the disqualified image in Mike's link, what was remarkable was the perfect framing of the fast moving plane, captured with exquisite precision. Except that we now know that it wasn't that way at all.
Anyone can paste a silhouette of a plane in a frame provided by a building or nature, but who respects that?
-
Anthony, I happen to agree with your last statement. There must be a reason for the way any picture is composed and presented. Cut-and-paste alone will not suffice.
Still, if the competition into which the 'fake' picture was entered had no rules against image composites, the photographer did nothing wrong per se. Perhaps he should own up to the fact of making a composite voluntarily and not later, but that is a minor offence in my book at least. Photography is an art form and way of expressing ideas that has its own domain of known methods and it is folly not to accept the tools at hand being applied. We should not be fundamentalists just for the sake of it. Whether the presented outcome deserves and is improved by the putative treatment ('cooking') is another aspect open for debate.
-
Taken at 09:36:47 on 14 November 2010 8)
-
Here is the exact same plane and moment, my mistake :)
Bjørn managed of course to capture the plane in clear sight unlike me :)
-
The issue of fake images in photographic competitions and possible IP infringements brings up a question: can anyone recommend a search link or tool where one can automate the process of comparing a given image with those in published/public domain image sources or nominated sites that one may be authorised to have access to?
TIA
-
Must be BBC then ....
Andy
I think the BBC may still be smarting from the Captive/Tame Wolf Scandal
of course Nikon Singapore is not quite in the same League as the BBC and Natural History Museum Wildlife Photographer of the year ;)
Tom
-
The issue of fake images in photographic competitions and possible IP infringements brings up a question: can anyone recommend a search link or tool where one can automate the process of comparing a given image with those in published/public domain image sources or nominated sites that one may be authorised to have access to?
TIA
Reverse Image search with Google images works
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/1325808?hl=en
-
If you read the article the problem is that the photographer tried to pass this composite image as a real image that he took where in fact it was apparently very easy to spot as a fake.
Bjorn a difference is that you are not trying to pass off your picture as a true non faked image!
I think it doesn't matter who reports the fake the issue is that it being passed off as a non faked picture. The BBC is just as likely to be fooled as anybody else, obviously Nikon are no different.
Composite images per se are not a problem, but to try and pass one off in a competition as not faked is very wrong. surely you can't be in favour of surrepticious fakery for gain?
-
Mike, if the last question was directed to me, no not at all. One has to follow the rules laid down.
However, because I have no objections against using composited images, I don't call them 'fake'. That is a misunderstanding of the nature of a photograph. A picture is always an illusion.
-
I think the BBC may still be smarting from the Captive/Tame Wolf Scandal
of course Nikon Singapore is not quite in the same League as the BBC and Natural History Museum Wildlife Photographer of the year ;)
Tom
'Scandal' ?? Virtually all photos we see of big predators such as sea eagles, bears, and wolves here in Europe are obtained under arranged situations. Using baits etc. This is big industry in some areas. The scandal is rather people still believe they photograph these animals in the true wild.
-
Jakov,that b/w image is really cool! Looks like water.
I personally don't care for composite images such as the one being discuessed as part of the magic (for me) is either the chance occurence or the planning needed to make it. Whether or not it should be ok in competitions, I don't care. I'm not into competitions with other people.
-
On a general note, I wish people would stop considering pictures as being 'true' or 'false'. They are just illusions and show what the photographer intended to show, nothing more and nothing less. They show the direction the lens is [deliberately] pointing and the composition framed by the photographer. From the same vantage point endless versions of its surroundings can be created. There is no such thing as absolute 'truth' inherent in a photograph.
-
I really appreciate what Bjorn is saying. I learned much about this when I published this image on the old Nikon Gear some time ago. As I passed this little cascade one morning, there was a photographer there taking photographs. I had passed this location many many times. When I returned, he had gone and I got out to photograph this attractive scene. "Look how the cascade was framed". I then realized that it was "Staged". There were no red maple leaves there in the natural scene, neither the yellow Aspen leaves close to the cascade. I had been duped? By the way the bending Aspen tree above the water was NOT staged.
What followed was some really helpful comments about what a photograph is. Essentially, all studio photography is staged. But its just not the studio and lighting. Perspective, especially as relates to telephoto and wide angle lenses, is not as we see it with our eyes. Even such a simple things as cropping changes greatly what a photograph communicates. We crop, erase, and clone all the time. I always considered this as acceptable. Being "duped" was something I felt because of my presumptions and not some sinister action of the previous photographer.
Photo journalism has its own set of rules which are more strict relative to what kind of editing is acceptable, since it can of course changed what is "implied" by the image.
I find this kind of discussion very enlightening.
Lowell
-
Bjorn I think you've missed the point the point is the photographer lied and said it was NOT composite picture, but said he actually saw the aircraft flying over the ladder! He didn't he made it up hence his apology!!!!
-
I have heard such stories before. It's just human nature at work when someone is caught with their pants down.
-
Bjørn, I feel that depends heavily on the photograph itself. War photography and other journalistic photographies are indeed captures of truth, that is the ground they stand upon and the very value they offer to us. Outside of journalistic/scientific/etc. photography, I agree completely.
Whether I enjoy a composite image or not largely boils down to whethef the composite image was realistically possible without composite. If not, I am free to enjoy it. If it was realistically possible, I usually won't care for it. I am not interested in the work of the lazy.
There are a lot of similar things that happen in the music world. To give a short example, drum triggers. A pressure microphone is attached to the drummer's bass drums which is converted to midi signals. On the engineer's computer, the midi signals are replaced by audio samples of a bass drum being hit very hard. The mic triggers a sample. The drummer then plays fast bass drum work by tapping very lightly. On the record you hear a drummer playing at high speed with incredible power. It is an illusion, that could have been real if the drummer was willing to practice more. I'd rather not hear such cheap garbage.
That's how I feel about composite images wthat were possible without the composite. I feel composites should be a tool to make more possible, not to donless for your results.
-
If the rules of a competition state that no composite images are allowed - then they are not allowed!
I believe in the end result, and if you achieve it with a composite image, so be it.
I don't mind any sort of manipulation to achieve any given goal :)
Tiristin, thanks for the kind words. The image was not a composite - just inverted 8)
-
Tristin,
I agree about photojournalism. Photographers have been dismissed for moving people around to imply something different from what was originally shown in the images. So it appears that the difference is artistic intent versus photo journalistic intent? In photojournalism, the "viewer" makes an assumption that his/her take on a photographed scene is "as it was"? Still, we accept cropping and use of telephoto lenses however.
Lowell
-
Telephoto lenses and cropping do not change the scene as it was. Journalistic photography isn't supposed to show you exactly what the photographers eyes saw when it comes to his FOV/etc. as that is impossible with any lens. It is supposed to show you what is going on somewhere you are not.
-
Even pictures from war are determined by how the photographer works and what he or she wants to convey.
A hunter's camera attached to a tree trunk and triggered remotely by the animal itself might come close to 'truth'. Everywhere else the photographer's mindset and vision influence the final outcome.
-
Telephoto lenses and cropping do not change the scene as it was. Journalistic photography isn't supposed to show you exactly what the photographers eyes saw when it comes to his FOV/etc. as that is impossible with any lens. It is supposed to show you what is going on somewhere you are not.
Tristin,
Let's take cropping. Something as simple as cropping can dramatically alter what a photograph shows about a scene. You see a photo of a crouching lion focused on something. You think it is ready to pounce on some prey. But the photographer has cropped away the fact that the truck is sitting just outside the view. Does the photograph show the truth? Our reaction depends on whether we feel we have been "duped" as I mention above.
Lowell
-
I am no war photographer, but I am sure a lot of war photography has a lot less to do with what the photographer wants to convey artistically and a lot more to do with just point and shooting in the heat of the moment. I doubt many could keep their adrenaline under control enough to worry about anything more. Gary would be the one to say.
I mean this in absolutely no disrespect, as I love your work Bjørn, but I feel your pespective on some of this is being colored heavily by your photographic experience. Which is a different world from photo journalism. Even as someone who is not a journalist, I have certainly taken images that captured truth. I feel is is denigrating to say that all images are illusions, even to some degree. There are some images that I would feel thoroughly appalled were someone to even bring the perspective of illusion into the discussion regarding it. I am, though, not concerned with feeling appalled or offended. 😉
Lowell, and such practices in photo journalism are certainly right to be criticized. Cropping to alter the viewer's perspective really only holds real implications when it has the power to alter the way we feel about each other and the responsibilities we have, or do not. I am sure there are cases, but I can't think of any in wildlife photography where that truth was the point. We just like looking at beautiful animals. ☺
I should add that while I don't care too much about the initial topic, I am really enjoying the conversation it sparked! Quite moving thus far.
-
I think it is rather complicated.
"Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere." GK Chesterton.
Context and integrity, for example are relevant.
If a photographer presents an image as fairly reflecting reality, when it does not, then that is dishonest. Photography for legal proceedings would be one example, news reporting is another.
The fact that there are other ways of deceiving people, eg by selectively framing the image with the viewfinder, just shows that editing on the computer is not the only way to be dishonest – it does not justify dishonesty by editing.
Nor does the fact that different film types give different rendering justify dishonesty.
Recently a UK politician had his imaged Photoshopped into the photo of an event he had not actually attended. You can imagine that the reaction was not very favourable.
Recently, I tried and failed to capture the Supermoon. I could have created a convincing Supermoon image in Photoshop and posted it on a thread of authentic images of that event. That would have been artistically dishonest, and no doubt would have irritated the photographers who had successfully captured the real thing.
Sometimes I see photos of beautiful sunsets, which are presented as something the photographer saw the previous night. The value of the photo arises from the fact that it authentically presents a beautiful natural phenomenon. If I find out that it has been largely created on the computer, then I lose interest (other than in the technical aspects).
This tells us that in the world of nature photography, people care about authenticity. There is a lot of cynicism today because so many images are significantly manipulated. I am sure we have all been asked the question "Was it really like that or did you just do it in Photoshop?" If the answer is that it really was like that, the viewer is usually impressed. If the answer is that the lovely sunset was actually created by clever use of Photoshop then the response is usually along the lines of "Meh!" (unless the viewer is an admirer of Photoshop skills).
The BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year Competition and NatGeo have strict rules on the degree of editing allowed. This is because viewers want to know that the images displayed are authentic.
There are other areas where editing is an issue. There is a lot of controversy over manipulating model images to make the model seem much slimmer, with some saying that this encourages anorexia.
On the other hand, many people have no problem with the tidying up of an image, eg by removing the pesky tourist in the pink shirt from in front of the beautiful view.
Editing for art is fine, but if the image is presented as being an authentic representation rather than the artistic vision of the photographer, one then gets into morally ambiguous territory. There are lots of grey areas, and different people will draw the line in different places.
There is a lot more that could be said on this debate, but I think it is clear that there is not one simple answer that fits all circumstances.
-
The oldest picture in existence shows the roof tops of Paris with shadows to both sides. Thus, illusions are an integrated part of photography since its inception. Just accept that images never are 'true'. They exist and convey ideas. The 'denigrating' part would be to state photographs lack ideas or character or don't tell a story.
-
I am not a purist. I have never claimed to be. I don't have to tell anyone if I make a composite or not - and the days where people all got their hind legs up about Digital vs Film is long gone (as they said digital is always manipulated - their excuse - not mine)
For me - every single image is manipulated. EVERY SINGLE ONE
The very first image was Black and white. No one sees in black and white -
images taken in portrait format - we see with 2 eyes - in landscape format -
Our brains take in a scene - a photo captures a fraction of that
But a competition is about rules. Follow them if you want to enter.
-
I have no issue with agreeing to disagree, and I think it's cool you disagree. I certainly am not the person to state the way all things ought to be done, felt or thought!
-
This conversation is fascinating and to me very useful. To me it all comes down to the fact that a photo captured with a camera is not the same as how we "see" the world. As Frisby contends, we see with our 'brains" and not our eyes. We cast our gaze about, feel the motion of air, know what is behind us, we integrate noises and smells to "View" the scene before us. We are looking down a tube with poor peripheral vision, which is designed with pretty good capability to capture motion and some context. We remember lots about the scene, which simply can NOT be in a photograph.
I learn much about photography when these topics come up!
Lowell
-
This conversation is fascinating and to me very useful. To me it all comes down to the fact that a photo captured with a camera is not the same as how we "see" the world. As Frisby contents, we see with our 'brains" and not our eyes. We cast our gaze about, feel the motion of air, know what is behind us, we integrate noises and smells to "View" the scene before us. We are looking down a tube with poor peripheral vision, which is designed with pretty good capability to capture motion and some context. We remember lots about the scene, which simply can NOT be in a photograph.
I learn much about photography when these topics come up!
Lowell
well put.
-
Regardless of all discussion, I find the picture poor, ugly and uninteresting. I fine example of how a photo contest might be a joke.
-
Regardless of all discussion, I find the picture poor, ugly and uninteresting. I fine example of how a photo contest might be a joke.
Aguinaldo, this comment is just priceless!!
Lowell
-
Agunaldo, you are quite right!
-
I actually like the winning picture, and I must admire the gall of the photographer.
The conversation has been interesting and I can relate to almost everybody's position. I can see where the "no manipulation" photojournalists and documentary photographers come from, but identically I can see and appreciate the point of even the very extreme "anything goes" artists.
(opinion)
Still, I confess I like the kind of elemental and reckless, even rebel, attitude of the photographer. He didn't even try to hide his tracks in the image. And in the end, the obscure casual "never heard" competition got a lot of attention. Well done both Nikon and Yu Wei. Thumbs up.
(opinion off)
8)
-
I really appreciate what Bjorn is saying. I learned much about this when I published this image on the old Nikon Gear some time ago. As I passed this little cascade one morning, there was a photographer there taking photographs. I had passed this location many many times. When I returned, he had gone and I got out to photograph this attractive scene. "Look how the cascade was framed". I then realized that it was "Staged". There were no red maple leaves there in the natural scene, neither the yellow Aspen leaves close to the cascade. I had been duped? By the way the bending Aspen tree above the water was NOT staged.
What followed was some really helpful comments about what a photograph is. Essentially, all studio photography is staged. But its just not the studio and lighting. Perspective, especially as relates to telephoto and wide angle lenses, is not as we see it with our eyes. Even such a simple things as cropping changes greatly what a photograph communicates. We crop, erase, and clone all the time. I always considered this as acceptable. Being "duped" was something I felt because of my presumptions and not some sinister action of the previous photographer.
Photo journalism has its own set of rules which are more strict relative to what kind of editing is acceptable, since it can of course changed what is "implied" by the image.
I find this kind of discussion very enlightening.
Lowell
I think I remember that thread.
I had a robust conversation with someone in it.
I was incensed that a "nature" photographer could conceive not just "setting up" a scene in a relatively innocuous way - not my thing, but the world is wide and there is space for many different tastes - but also cut down branches from live trees (the red aspen) to move them to where they fit better his vision. And if I remember correctly the place even had some sort of protected natural status!
The other person was quite unmoved by the argument that someone should not damage a natural place to get the shot.
As for compositing, it is just a step further from the use of other common photographic techniques.
Each one has different standards and may draw a different line at what is acceptable manipulation, but as Bjørn said not a single image is a perfectly true depiction of reality and all to some extent are manipulated. Even images for "objective" uses are not completely true representations, although they do come closer than many other images and most importantly they comply to more stringent rules.
I personally am not too keen on compositing but there is nothing wrong in itself and on rare occasions I too have done it.
It all depends on the context. If it is a photo contest and there are rules against it, don't do it.
If you did it, but are stating you didn't, it's a lie. In most contexts other than a competition and "fact reporting" (journalism, forensic, scientific, etc) compositing is not a problem, but lying about it is never OK.
-
Simone,
I remember that exchange now. Yes, this area is "protected". This particular canyon has over a million visitors each year and one is not to cut down trees or branches. As I have mentioned, I find these conversations to be really instructive as well as interesting.
Thanks
-
If you post something which looks natural but is composited, without telling the viewers that what they are seeing is not at all what was there, is this acceptable? Eg if I had posted a Photoshop created Supermoon image in the thread of Supermoon images, without disclosing that it was a composited image, I think that would have been dishonest.
-
If you post something which looks natural but is composited, without telling the viewers that what they are seeing is not at all what was there, is this acceptable? Eg if I had posted a Photoshop created Supermoon image in the thread of Supermoon images, without disclosing that it was a composited image, I think that would have been dishonest.
I appreciate it is a grey area and individual sensibilities may be different.
Personally I think more or less anything goes and one does not have to state what they have done to their picture, as long as they are not making some untruthful claim about it.
If the composite is very evident I think there is no controversy - it is so blatantly obvious.
When the compositing is so well done that it is not distinguishable from "reality" I appreciate that some may consider it "lie by omission". I don't agree because this is attributing to the "offender" the intention of deliberately misleading the viewer, which may or may not be the case.
Even if the creator is deliberately misleading (but not lying outright) I could accept it in some circumstances, although in all cases my very personal reaction to discovering that a remarkable shot is in fact a composite, or some other similar gross alteration of the original scene, would be to lose interest in it.
-
This is up to each person to decide on their own. If you had envisioned a bright moon and as it turned out, something irrelevant intervened and you didn't get it exactly as you had planned, is anything gained or lost by being puristic? No fixed answer for that I'd guess.
There is a precedent in nature photography for making composites even in the field of documentation. Focus stacking thus is essentially nothing than an ordered sequence of composites normally arranged and blended by automated procedures, that in the extreme end easily can be encompassed by a two-layer blending done manually.
-
There is a precedent in nature photography for making composites even in the field of documentation. Focus stacking thus is essentially nothing than an ordered sequence of composites normally arranged and blended by automated procedures, that in the extreme end easily can be encompassed by a two-layer blending done manually.
Interesting point, I had not thought about it but it is very true.
-
Interesting point, I had not thought about it but it is very true.
Any time in any field boundaries are set up for which inside of them is all right and outside is not, some one will be able to break out of that box. Always.
-
Any time in any field boundaries are set up for which inside of them is all right and outside is not, some one will be able to break out of that box. Always.
And with digital this is even more evident, although Ansel Adams spent countless hours in the lab with dodge and burn to enhance the contrast of his photographs.
-
It is ironic that the claimed merit (I looked up and reacted quickly to make this graphically interesting shot) of the winning image in the Nikon Singapore contest depends on our assumption that it is not faked.
-
I find the plaigarism to be the repulsive aspect of the winning image.
-
This subject always brings out differences of opinions, Wildlife Forums can get pretty heated ;) . My cut is: A great image is a great image :). It really doesn't matter how it was manipulated.
If a photographer presents an image and lets it stand on its own merits ....fine. It is when the photographer, editor, or publication claims it to be something it is not, or manipulates the story being presented, is where the trouble starts .
I strongly disagree that every image is an illusion but that could be just the meaning/use of the term. Shooting action , be it Sports, PJ, Wildlife, possibly others, the photographer is capturing an instant moment in time and often does not have the luxury of an involved thought process.
Documentary and Photojournalist photography should probably stick to the who, where, when and how. Once the photograph has been taken much can be done to alter the reality. If the photographer wants to put a slant on a photojournalistic piece they pick , and frame, their shots. A photo of a dirty, crying child while a few feet away there are kids laughing and playing ;) . I personally have problems with some modern photojournalism and the Media but that is a long discussion . I had unusual experiences with the "5 O'clock Follies" and CHINFO/USMACV ;D , >:(.
Oh, and a lousy image is a lousy image ;) . I can speak with authority on that one ;)
Just my 2 Rupees, not even 2 cents
-
If one strictly believes a photograph is objective and allows us to reach the exact same information as our eyes and brain could provide (at the same location & time), and that this information flow is not possible to interpret differently in any way, yes, then the picture would better be labelled "a perfect model" instead of "illusion". But each and every criterion listed here can easily be falsified. Even in documentary photography, a fact that has been known and discussed for centuries. The Heisenberg principle is also part of photography.
-
Thanks Erik. I appreciate your help.
Reverse Image search with Google images works
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/1325808?hl=en
-
I think this problem can be solved if contest' promoters require a raw file of your picture.
Of course, if you take a picture of a faked image, you can get a raw file.
Hence this question : Could it be detectable with technical means ?
-
There is no problem making a 'fake' RAW and use that to avoid being banned from a competition. Does a painter have to deliver his pencils and colour boxes when he enters an exhibition?
I said it before and bears repetition: any imposed limits and restrictions can be transgressed. It is human nature to rise to a challenge.
-
If one strictly believes a photograph is objective and allows us to reach the exact same information as our eyes and brain could provide (at the same location & time), and that this information flow is not possible to interpret differently in any way, yes, then the picture would better be labelled "a perfect model" instead of "illusion". But each and every criterion listed here can easily be falsified. Even in documentary photography, a fact that has been known and discussed for centuries. The Heisenberg principle is also part of photography.
Not a lot of disagreement. Just the term "All" and not wild about what the term "a perfect model" implies . I prefer an "accurate photographic record" at a particular moment of time :) .
Even taking the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ( a Norwegian 'Red" Herring ;) ) into account, cameras are very often a more accurate record of an event than things people think they see and processed by their brain(too many filters).
Happens to me all the time and if you do not believe it ask any modern day Sports Official :)
Do I want to see images that are always "a perfect model" ? Absolutely not :) . The vision and skills of individual Photographers is what makes it interesting and a learning experience.
Sure, if you set out to create or manipulate an image, for whatever purpose, easily done.
-
My point was to remind that it is the photographer who makes the image, not the camera. We are part of the experiment as it were and thereby influence the outcome.
-
A stimulating discussion here! For some reason, it reminds me how a lot of people talk about instagram filters. Filters are very popular, but some look down upon the filter as a form of cheating. When you take a "real photo" using the objectively-true standard iPhone camera settings, you can proudly proclaim "No Filter!"
-
A stimulating discussion here! For some reason, it reminds me how a lot of people talk about instagram filters. Filters are very popular, but some look down upon the filter as a form of cheating. When you take a "real photo" using the objectively-true standard iPhone camera settings, you can proudly proclaim "No Filter!"
I am not sure I understand. One of the fundamental points here to me is that the camera and the human-eye-brain "seeing" system are not the same. Our system does not photograph the scene! Try the following experiment. With someone else driving a car cast your gaze down the middle of the road. Without moving your eyes, ie casting your gaze to the side, see if you can read any of the signs off to the side as you move down the road. You will find that you cannot! You must look at the sign to read it. With our visual system we only see detail as though we are looking down a tube. Only the Macula of the eye has high resolution,. Its our "reading" vision. We capture the whole scene by gazing around and integrating the scene with our brains. Without being aware of it we refocus on things that are closer or further as we move around. This isn't at all like a camera. Hence, all camera images are fundamentally different than our vision system. In a sense all camera based photographs are therefore illusions. At the very least, they are really different from how we see the world. This, in part, make photography so interesting.
-
I am not sure I understand.
Lowell, my comment was intended to be tongue in cheek. My point is that some people consider a standard iPhone photo to be a "real photo" and the filters are like cheating or doctoring the "real photo." I agree with those saying there is no such thing as an objectively true photo.
-
Chip, Great I understand. Its really a fascinating topic. I always learn so much in an friendly and insightful setting as this to see, no pun intended, how others think of photography.
-
One can argue that our brains are not digital, hence the digital photos that we make are not what we see :)
-
Jakov,
Not sure where you are going with this. The display of the images is analog, the camera is analog up until the A/D conversion process, the prints are analog. I'm not sure what your point is. What we see on the monitor is analog. The brain is mixed analog and digital.
-
Lowell, the brain is not at all digital. Digital means data represented by digits (1s & 0s), not by electrical impulses.
-
Tristin, The brain is so completely fascinating. Some of it is sort of digital. All of the discrete neurons don't just sum charge like an analog computer. Also, not to put too fine a point on it, all digital computers ultimately store information in an analog form. It is of course true that the brain does NOT function like a digital computer. On the other hand it is not really an analog computer either. This is what I meant. Also, all numbers in a computer are transmitted by electrical signals.
-
It would be possible to argue that the interpretation by our brain is the illusion. Every individual has filters based on their life experiences. The camera, depending on the sensor, manufacturer's in built method of processing, and the settings the photographer uses, perspective, use of light, etc, just records the image . No thought process by the camera ;) .
Many simple party games, not too mention well researched studies, that show that rarely do two or more people seeing the same thing "See" and describe it in the same way. Terms such as "Seeing is believing". "the brain plays tricks on you", "can't believe your eyes" come to mind.
I am in agreement that it is the person using the tool (camera) that influences/dictates the image produced. In the technical sense, digital vs Analog, I'm not sure that it really matters.
The human brain is still far from being totally understood.
Anyway, photography is still open to experimentation and fun. That is not even going into the realm of Post Processing ;D , >:(
-
Tom, I agree. In Frisby's book on "Seeing" he gets into illusions a lot and uses those times when our visual system is essentially tricked to understand how the system works. I agree that digital/analog argument is irrelevant. My main point is that the human visual system is really very much different than a camera. Our visual system fails us all the time, but we have survived very well for long time. We have no macro vision, we have no telephoto vision. I can put a 50mm lens on my D800 and take a photo. In that photo at home on my large screen, I can see details totally invisible to me as I stood and looked at the scene. This is what make photography so interesting to me. It extends our visual systems in really interesting ways. Not even including IR or UV imaging. In a prior life, my world was X-ray imaging. Now there is a strange world.
-
have you seen the internet response ?
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/photography/nikon-photography-competition-winning-entry-turns-out-to-be-badly-doctored-image-a6845196.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/photography/nikon-photography-competition-winning-entry-turns-out-to-be-badly-doctored-image-a6845196.html)
-
Jakov,
Not sure where you are going with this. The display of the images is analog, the camera is analog up until the A/D conversion process, the prints are analog. I'm not sure what your point is. What we see on the monitor is analog. The brain is mixed analog and digital.
Lowell, my brain is not analog or digital it is organic.
My brain doesn't contain copper or silicon (at least I hope so).
My brain has feelings.
Our gear can be analog or digital, but what we see and experience must be organic, don't you think?
-
Jakov, I shouldn't brought up the analog/digital topic. Its a Red Herring and contributes nothing to the interesting discussion going on in this thread. It has been highly useful for me to come to appreciate that camera systems we are using for photography, record 2-D images in a manner which is often completely different from how are visual system works. Its how photography extends and can be used to produce images which could never be seen in the real world that's so compelling. And yes, we respond to the emotion of that.
I do believe, that much of the reaction to the 'fake' image, which started this discussion, is because people feel "duped' or mislead. It violates the viewers assumption about the capture of the image of course. But we have endless discussion about say a photograph of a flower, where the photographer has used a large aperture and done it so only the tip of a single petal is in focus. Then we rave about the smoothness of the out-of-focus portions of the image. Looking at the flower with the naked eye, we don't see anything like that photograph. To us its all in focus. In this way, all of our images are "illusions". Sorry if I ramble on a bit here.
-
Lowell, you should have brought up whatever is on your mind :)
We all learn from these discussions and we hear different views on photography. We all benefit, and that is why NG exists.
I strongly support diversity and I am not the most 'by the book' guy.
So please feel free to ramble on as much as you like. I for one am very curious to what you or any other comrade have to say!
It makes me think, and that is priceless...
-
I am a hypocrite.
I take multiple images at night and stack them together to make a star trail, yet I was offended the other day by an image I saw on Instagram of a cathedral with the moon behind the spire. Both were sharp, and the moon was far too large.
And because I am not great at introspection, I struggle to understand why I feel this way. Perhaps it is because part of the pleasure I take in looking at other people's photos is in trying to figure out how it was done, and because I am very uneducated in post-processing, I struggle with severely edited photos.
-
Peter,
Like you, I am not sure why I consider some forms of processing or even intervention acceptable and others not. I am convinced that without it, many of my images would be even more boring.
Lowell
-
I am a hypocrite.
I take multiple images at night and stack them together to make a star trail, yet I was offended the other day by an image I saw on Instagram of a cathedral with the moon behind the spire. Both were sharp, and the moon was far too large.
And because I am not great at introspection, I struggle to understand why I feel this way. Perhaps it is because part of the pleasure I take in looking at other people's photos is in trying to figure out how it was done, and because I am very uneducated in post-processing, I struggle with severely edited photos.
Your star trail is a recording of a real event - you just had to take a lot of pictures to get record it. Nobody could possibly think that the image shows what the human eye could see, and nobody is deceived. The moon behind the cathedral looks good (maybe) but is a misrepresentation of what was really there. Depending on context, that might not matter at all, but if someone is pretending that this was what they saw, then your taking offence is reasonable.
You are not a hypocrite at all, but maybe you need to practise constructive introspection.
-
Anthony,
Isn't it true, that the naked eye can't see either of these events? Isn't it also possible that is one can get far enough away from the church and use a long enough lens is just may be possible to create the photograph Peter is referring to?
-
I have to quote myself:
Do keep in mind that photography is entirely and fundamentally different to the way humans observe their environment. We should focus (sic) on the outcome not the underlying process.
In the church spire vs. Moon question, the implication is that the perspective is 'wrong' because the size of the Moon is not commensurable with that of the church. The eye cannot perceive this, but the camera easily can by means of various tricks of the trade either done in-camera or later.
-
I have to quote myself:
Do keep in mind that photography is entirely and fundamentally different to the way humans observe their environment. We should focus (sic) on the outcome not the underlying process.
Bjorn,
I am in complete agreement with this statement. I am admittedly a bit slow on the uptake and it has taken me some time to overcome my predilection that my photography was primarily photojounalistic, i.e., capturing a scene as it "really was." Since I have studied a bit about our visual system, I have come to realize just how stunningly different the camera is from that system. Being a simple minded scientist, understanding he underlying processes in photography, is for me really helpful. Nice to know how to get the various effects that I want to see in my photographs.
-
I have to quote myself:
Do keep in mind that photography is entirely and fundamentally different to the way humans observe their environment. We should focus (sic) on the outcome not the underlying process.
In the church spire vs. Moon question, the implication is that the perspective is 'wrong' because the size of the Moon is not commensurable with that of the church. The eye cannot perceive this, but the camera easily can by means of various tricks of the trade either done in-camera or later.
Even if the moon was the right size, the photo would still be a fake if presented as a wonderful scene of nature.
If it was presented as something else, then a different analysis might apply.
-
Anthony,
Isn't it true, that the naked eye can't see either of these events? Isn't it also possible that is one can get far enough away from the church and use a long enough lens is just may be possible to create the photograph Peter is referring to?
True, the naked eye cannot see either. But in the first case there is an event, or series of events. In the second case, there is no event at all. The moon has been pasted in. That is a huge difference. Whether that huge difference matters or not depends on the context. For example, some fantasy, or a movie poster; but if it is presented as real, then there is dishonesty.
-
Bjorn,
I am in complete agreement with this statement. I am admittedly a bit slow on the uptake and it has taken me some time to overcome my predilection that my photography was primarily photojounalistic, i.e., capturing a scene as it "really was." Since I have studied a bit about our visual system, I have come to realize just how stunningly different the camera is from that system. Being a simple minded scientist, understanding he underlying processes in photography, is for me really helpful. Nice to know how to get the various effects that I want to see in my photographs.
It depends on the circumstances. Sometimes the process is crucial e.g. forensic photography (an extreme example, but many others exist). Sometimes it is not crucial.
The fact that a 2D image can never fully capture a 3D world does not justify dishonesty. In my view, anyway. It is about where to draw the line, not whether the line exists.
-
Thanks, Anthony I am curious. Did the owner state that the Instagram image was not a composite?
-
'Dishonesty' is a difficult concept in this connection. It assumes something has been changed in order to deliberately mislead the viewer. There is no need to manipulate or composite an image in order to achieve a 'misleading' impression. Photographers do this all the time simply by selecting how to convey their surroundings into a photograph. However does this matter? Only if an objective truth exists.
In forensic photography, the way the photograph is made and how it is to be interpreted is strictly documented and thus the outcome in principle is reproducible for any photographer.
-
Thanks, Anthony I am curious. Did the owner state that the Instagram image was not a composite?
It is clear from the discussions that I have not seen the Instagram image. That is why my comments on it are all qualified by "if".
-
'Dishonesty' is a difficult concept in this connection. It assumes something has been changed in order to deliberately mislead the viewer. There is no need to manipulate or composite an image in order to achieve a 'misleading' impression. Photographers do this all the time simply by selecting how to convey their surroundings into a photograph. However does this matter? Only if an objective truth exists.
In forensic photography, the way the photograph is made and how it is to be interpreted is strictly documented and thus the outcome in principle is reproducible for any photographer.
I agree, there are many ways a photographer can mislead the viewer. Editing is only one. Does it matter if the photograph is misleading? Sometimes, yes, it matters a great deal. Sometimes it matters a bit. And sometimes it does not matter at all. Context and intent are key. The search for objective truth is often futile, and truth itself has been argued over by philosophers for millennia. A problem arises when someone knows that he is giving a misleading impression, and does it anyway.
Here is an example of a faked political photo. There is, I believe, objective truth in this case. And the clumsiness of the fakery is embarrassing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/11/your_download_and_keep_guide_to_the_james_purnell_fake_photo_non-scandal.html
-
'Dishonesty' is a difficult concept in this connection.... There is no need to manipulate or composite an image in order to achieve a 'misleading' impression. Photographers do this all the time simply by selecting how to convey their surroundings into a photograph. However does this matter? Only if an objective truth exists.
In no small part these types of discussions and my own pondering the topic, I have come to appreciate just how true this is. Just by picking a lens and choosing where one stands, the surroundings can be eliminated and since they are not in the image the viewer has no idea of the context. Its up to the photographer to choose what he/she wants to viewer to focus on. Kinda photography 101 which I still haven't mastered.
-
It is said that a picture is worth (more than) a thousand words. I'd like to add that a picture is not worth a second of the eye. To me it then follows that a picture is just that - a picture, and not reality.
-
I think more along this train of thought: does it [the picture) serve its intended purpose?
-
I have another unrelated question. Do you guys ever go to bed?
Good thought for me. What is the intended purpose of my image?