Hear! Hear! Bob puts it very well. Cheers, Christine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob W" <[email protected]>
To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 6:26 PM
Subject: RE: Ethics of Manipulation (was: Re: Perspective
control(was:PESO:Church tower))
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
--
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.
