Sad Story of a fake picture!

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Lowell]

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. 

[Anthony]

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]

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.

[Anthony]

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.

[Lowell]

Thanks,  Anthony  I am curious.  Did the owner state that the Instagram image was not a composite?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

'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.

[Anthony]

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". 

[Anthony]

'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

[Lowell]

'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.

[stenrasmussen]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I think more along this train of thought: does it [the picture) serve its intended purpose?

[Lowell]

I have another unrelated question.  Do you guys ever go to bed? 

Good thought for me.  What is the intended purpose of my image?