What is it about the photos that is dishonest? What are they showing that didn't happen? Apparently nothing, according to you. If there is dishonesty it is because someone lies about them. It is the liar who is dishonest, not the photograph. Furthermore, even if it were possible for some photographs to be dishonest, Christian claims that EVERY photograph is dishonest.
Here is what I wrote in an earlier discussion of this type. I stand by it: "The key thing about photography that differentiates it from other media is that the image is formed mechanically from the direct action of light on a surface - it's not mediated by anyone's brain, so you can, in principle, show a causal link between the subject matter and the image. This is why photographs are so inherently believable, and is why people feel a sense of betrayal when they learn that a photograph has been manipulated (ie elements added or removed - certain activities in post-processing, such as contrast adjustment, dodging and burning are just working with what's already there to improve the presentation). Adding or removing elements breaks the causal relation between the picture and the subject and adds an entirely different dimension to the truth-value of the picture, taking into the realm of painting and writing. These activities may be based in the real world, but they are mitigated by the writer's or painter's brain. " and "It depends on what the photographer is claiming about the image. If you photoshop some fairies into your picture, claim that they really were there at the bottom of your garden, and sell the photos to the News of the World on that basis, then you're very obviously lying and it would be no different to writing an article about the aforementioned fairies and claiming that it was true. If on the other hand you sell the same picture as a whimsical fantasy image then you're not doing anything wrong*. Most people know the difference between fiction and reporting. It's not wrong or immoral to write fiction*. The immoral thing is to claim fiction as reporting. It's not wrong or immoral to photoshop a photograph - the immoral thing is to lie about it [..] generally speaking. There are, of course, situations where lying is a moral thing to do, but going into detail here is stretching things a bit." The relevance to your photos is much the same. Rather than Photoshopping stuff in you have set up a scene and photographed it. The scene really happened, I assume, so the causal relation exists between the scene and the photographs. But it was not an alien spacecraft that you photographed. If you tell me it was then you are lying, not the photograph. If you show me the photograph without making any claim about it I, as a skeptic, assume it's a set-up. A set-up is not the same as a lie, any more than a performance of Faustus is a lie. Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of DagT > Sent: 10 March 2009 23:12 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Ethics of Manipulation (was: Re: Perspective > control (was:PESO:Church tower)) > > I agree with Christian, and maybe it´s time to show these again: > http://photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=366144 > > Scanned from slides and not altered at all after scanning > they are not > manipulated according to the rules of photo.net, but they are > certainly results of an act of manipulation as they obviously do not > show anything that really happened. > > DagT > > Den 10. mars. 2009 kl. 23.59 skrev Bob W: > > > > > Bullshit. > > > >> > >> The act of taking the photograph is an act of manipulation and is > >> therefore always "dishonest" > >> > >> YOU CHOOSE what to include in every photograph you take and what to > >> exclude. YOU CHOOSE the angle it is shot from. YOU CHOOSE > >> the subject > >> matter, etc etc etc. > >> > >> All these CHOICES are "manipulating" the photograph and telling the > >> story that YOU want to tell. > >> > >> Whether you do it by composition, in photoshop, or in the darkroom, > >> EVERY photograph is "dishonest." > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Christian > >> http://404mohawknotfound.blogspot.com/ > >> > >> Nick Wright wrote: > >>> Yes, it is. But somewhere along the line I came to view one as > >>> "honest" and the other as "dishonest." > >>> > >>> Not that it's that simple though. Because I think that a > "straight" > >>> photo can be dishonest as well. > >>> > >>> Which is something that I've also been thinking about in > >> regards to my > >>> original photo. I like my shot quite a bit, but I cycled past that > >>> church again the other day and I realized that it is not an honest > >>> photo. > >>> > >>> The reason I believe that is because in the photo the tower > >> appears to > >>> be much taller than the rest of the building, when in > >> reality the roof > >>> line to the right of the tower in the photo is higher. > >>> > >>> I didn't think about it when I shot it, and then I didn't > >> think about > >>> it when I got the negs back. > >>> > >>> So what do you all think about that? > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Bruce Dayton > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Isn't just changing the lens or the angle that you take the shot, > >>>> changing the perspective? It would seem that if > altering the photo > >>>> after the shot bothers you, then altering the photo > before the shot > >>>> should to. Just different methods of accomplishing the > same basic > >>>> thing. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> Bruce > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 5:06:20 AM, you wrote: > >>>> > >>>> NW> Thanks to all the folks who took time to comment on > >> this last PESO of > >>>> NW> mine. I do appreciate the critiques. > >>>> > >>>> NW> One item I'd like to touch on is the concept of > >> software perspective > >>>> NW> control. I'd been thinking about this recently before > >> I'd posted my > >>>> NW> PESO and then Brian brought it up in his critique of > my image. > >>>> > >>>> NW> I'm just amazed at how fast technology changes. The > >> last time I was an > >>>> NW> active member of this list (granted that was 8 years > >> ago) the only way > >>>> NW> to achieve perspective control was with a view camera > >> or shift lens. > >>>> NW> Now you can get something of the same effect using photoshop. > >>>> > >>>> NW> I don't currently have any software with the ability > >> to "correct" > >>>> NW> perspective, but an older laptop of mine had Elements > >> 2 which did. I > >>>> NW> played around with it a bit but never could really get > >> my heart into > >>>> NW> it. > >>>> > >>>> NW> I think it mainly has to do with all those years at > >> the newspaper. Any > >>>> NW> alteration of a photograph like that just makes me cringe. > >>>> > >>>> NW> I'm curious to hear more of you all's opinions on > the process? > >>>> > >>>> NW> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Brian Walters > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> Nice composition but the tower gets a bit lost in the > >> background sky. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Also, I'd try a bit of perspective correction to make > >> the verticals > >>>>>> vertical and the horizontals, er...horizontal. It may > not be an > >>>>>> improvement but worth investigating. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Brian > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>>>> Brian Walters > >>>>>> Western Sydney Australia > >>>>>> http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 07:52 -0500, "Nick Wright" > >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> Here's another PESO: > >>>>>>> http://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/church-tower-2/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Comment welcome and appreciated. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> ~Nick David Wright > >>>>>>> http://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > >> directly above and follow the directions. > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > >> directly above and follow the directions. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> [email protected] > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly > >> above and follow the directions. > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > > and follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly > above and follow the directions. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
