Sad Story of a fake picture!

[Mike G]

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?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Tristin]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Lowell]

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

[Mike G]

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!!!!

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I have heard such stories before. It's just human nature at work when someone is caught with their pants down.

[Tristin]

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.

[Jakov Minić]

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 

[Lowell]

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

[Tristin]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[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.

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

[Tristin]

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.