Sad Story of a fake picture!

[simato73]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Lowell]

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. 

[pluton]

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. 

[Tristin]

I find the plaigarism to be the repulsive aspect of the winning image.

[tommiejeep]

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  ,  . 
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
   

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Hugh_3170]

Thanks Erik.  I appreciate your help.

Reverse Image search with Google images works
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/1325808?hl=en

[rosko]

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 ?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[tommiejeep]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Chip Chipowski]

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!"

[Lowell]

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. 

[Chip Chipowski]

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.