Choice of angles, focal length and lighting can certainly enter into manipulation of forensic evidence.Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Choice of angles, focal length and lighting can certainly enter into manipulation of forensic evidence.
Chris, I don't have the knowledgebase to do such mosaics. Instead, I find myself "waiting for the sun", for that one shot I know is coming. At least I can visualize it and successfully capture the image....for the most part.
Here is the finished shot of the boulder without the pole
013_5828-2k by jmarmck, on Flickr
no this is not a LF shot. I did not wait on this one either. I spotted it in the evening sun the day before and captures it in the morning sun the next day.
But here is an interesting concept of this. I was at the southern end of the Monument Valley loop up on the dunes. I notice that many of the plants had a blue cast to them. I thought this odd and it made for some very interesting attempts to capture these colors. But when I processed the film/images the plants were the usual browns/greys/greens. It was bit of a WTF moment till I figured that the persistent cast of rust color from the rocks, dirt and sand caused my perception to account for the excess red by nullifying the red causing the plants to appear a bluish. It would have made for some interesting photographs but it was impossible to capture. I tried several times over three days.
So given that, I would agree with the statements that the mere act of looking, much less photographing, lessens the authenticity of a depiction.
Perhaps adding the word ethics into the title and OP was inappropriate. But I was looking for opinions on how people feel about such manipulations.
Regards
Marty
Agreed. In fact, a number of news photographers have been fired for manipulating photos. Some AP and NPPA rules are particularly strident.
Before digital was common; remembering Kent State:
Photography is a representation or misrepresentation, a method subject to intentions. Advertising? If altered, then not forensic evidence. If unaltered, the photograph is admissible as forensic evidence, a true representation, art, a snapshot, suitable for framing, suitable for measurement and that's all I have to say about that.
is what I mean
Wow that's amazing. It has a mildly disconcerting effect, like an alien landscape
Presented above are plenty well considered perspectives. Ethics involve intentions, perceptions, deceit, deception, accuracy and truth, right and wrong.
A good looking photograph, regardless of technique, are good for both the client with an otherwise empty wall and photographer. No deceit, no misrepresentation, no intentional fooling, no harm, no foul, no problem, no ethical issue, even if trade secrets are not revealed.
A good looking photograph, regardless of technique, are derelict, unethical, wrong, possibly criminal when deception is the photographer's or editor's intention. It's a lie, intentionally deceptive, harmful, problematic and an ethical issue.
Crime scene alterations, desert real estate with an imported branch held in the frame or oasis p-shopped into frame . . . know what you're looking at, know your photographer, know your photo editor and don't over-think it. Refine your craft and do your best because no one else will do your best for you.
Live it up.
But it does, apparently, for some. Today from the NY Times:
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/0...=top-news&_r=0
Agreed.
I personally employ a photojournalistic ethic in all my work, that includes landscapes...I just see far too much computer fantasy out there and want no part of it. I had a heck of a time last Spring finding compositions on the Lake Tahoe shoreline that did not include a boat, buoy or person. One particular shot I worked on had a buoy in the upper left corner and I could not get rid of it and keep what I thought was the best arrangement. So I changed the composition and low and behold, came up with an even better shot in the process of getting rid of the buoy.
It just feels *really* good to never have that come in to question or be part of the equation when selling my work and instead of suffering from that self imposed limitation, I think my work is improved because of it, as do others.
Others obviously feel differently....
You are in good company. I kept this from an earlier read.
..from the Executive Editor of Photography at National Geographic magazine about their contest:
Please submit photographs that are un-manipulated and real, and that capture those special moments in time. The world is already full of visual artifice, and we don’t want the National Geographic Photography Contest to add to it. We want to see the world through your eyes, not the tools of Photoshop or setup photography.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks