I partially disagree. Virtually anything you can do in photoshop you can do with film. Multiple exposures, filters (look at what ND or graduated filters can do, or polarizers), perspective lenses, fish-eye lenses, or I can even print out a cutout of myself and add it to the set, making it look like there are two or more of me. Yes, in its very essence, the photo is a direct and "true" capture of the light that made it past the lens, but the light can be manipulated to tell a different story than what our eyes perceive to be there, i.e. filters or polarizers.
On 3/10/09, Bob W <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
