Sad Story of a fake picture!

[Lowell]

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.

[Jakov Minić]

One can argue that our brains are not digital, hence the digital photos that we make are not what we see

[Lowell]

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. 

[Tristin]

Lowell, the brain is not at all digital.  Digital means data represented by digits (1s & 0s), not by electrical impulses.

[Lowell]

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.

[tommiejeep]

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  ,

[Lowell]

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.

[armando_m]

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

[Jakov Minić]

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?

 

[Lowell]

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.

 

[Jakov Minić]

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...

[Peter Connan]

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.

[Lowell]

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

[Anthony]

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.

[Lowell]

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?