lukeb wrote: Monito wrote: lukeb wrote:
Then post processing in digital or dodging and burning conventional printing is \"honest\"? How about filters> that\'s honest? Or removing a zit fro a lady\'s face> that\'s honest? IMHO opinion, trying to make the craft honest or dishonest because of creative license taken is, folly.
Yes. However, deception is dishonorable. Failure to admit to the facts (compositing, retouching, manipulation, etc.) when questioned or confronted would be dishonest if it were true. It seems as if there has been some subtle deception but little or no dishonesty.
By your reasoning, most of the photographers on this board are dishonorable.
Where on this board have you seen a disclaimer for post processing. composting or other manipulation on posted captures?
By your standard, every movie or photograph in the last 5 years or so is dishonorable.
And who is going to be the inquisitor or chief confronter? You?
Over and over in this thread, many have tried to make it clear that there is nothing \"dishonorable\" about post-processing, per se. In fact, it is essentially impossible to create a photograph without it. Not sure if you missed that or are just trying to be argumentative.
The issue is about honesty and integrity, not about post-processing. The sorts of deception under discussion in this thread are not, for example, the inclusion of what appears to be an impossible moon, presumably composited with a photo of a ridge/tree by some post-processing technique or another. In my view, it is fine to use essentially any technique that works when you create photographic art. (Yes, photo journalism has a different set of standards.) If compositing is your thing - go for it. Feel free to adjust lots of different aspects of the image in post to improve it - virtually all good photographers do this. Use tilt/shift/swing techniques at the time you shoot, and add a GND if necessary. Spot out dust or clone it out in post. Clone out the odd, small distracting element if you think that is OK. Use a telephoto or an ultra-wide lens. Stick a CPL on to increase cloud/sky contrast or control reflections. If you shoot BW, use a color filter. Use focus and/or exposure bracketing...
Just don\'t then claim that your images, unlike those of other photographers, entirely eschew any of these things. Better yet, do as many fine photographers do - Ansel sure did - speak openly and honestly of the techniques you use to create your images and encourage others to use them with taste in order to achieve the visual interpretation that you/they have in mind.
The deception comes when a photographer claims that a photograph is the result of simply being there, great timing and vision, and observing and capturing a thing that really happened... when that is clearly not how this image came about.
If the image is great on its own merits, one wonders why it is then necessary to mislead or lie about its origins...
lukeb wrote: Monito wrote: lukeb wrote:
Then post processing in digital or dodging and burning conventional printing is \"honest\"? How about filters> that\'s honest? Or removing a zit fro a lady\'s face> that\'s honest? IMHO opinion, trying to make the craft honest or dishonest because of creative license taken is, folly.
Yes. However, deception is dishonorable. Failure to admit to the facts (compositing, retouching, manipulation, etc.) when questioned or confronted would be dishonest if it were true. It seems as if there has been some subtle deception but little or no dishonesty.
By your reasoning, most of the photographers on this board are dishonorable.
Where on this board have you seen a disclaimer for post processing. composting or other manipulation on posted captures?
By your standard, every movie or photograph in the last 5 years or so is dishonorable.
And who is going to be the inquisitor or chief confronter? You?
Over and over in this thread, many have tried to make it clear that there is nothing \"dishonorable\" about post-processing, per se. In fact, it is essentially impossible to create a photograph without it. Not sure if you missed that or are just trying to be argumentative.
The issue is about honesty and integrity, not about post-processing. The deception under discussion in this case is not the inclusion of what appears to be an impossible moon, presumably by some post-processing technique or another. In my view, it is fine to use essentially any technique that works when you create photographic art. (Yes, photo journalism has a different set of standards.) If compositing is your thing - go for it. Feel free to adjust lots of different aspects of the image in post to improve it - virtually all good photographers do this. Use tilt/shift/swing techniques at the time you shoot, and add a GND if necessary. Spot out dust or clone it out in post. Clone out the odd, small distracting element if you think that is OK. Use a telephoto or an ultra-wide lens. Stick a CPL on to increase cloud/sky contrast or control reflections. If you shoot BW, use a color filter. Etc...
Just don\'t then claim that your images, unlike those of other photographers, entirely eschew any of these things. Better yet, do as many fine photographers do - Ansel sure did - speak openly and honestly of the techniques you use to create your images and encourage others to use them with taste in order to achieve the visual interpretation that you/they have in mind.
The deception comes when a photographer claims that a photograph is the result of simply being there, great timing and vision, and observing and capturing a thing that really happened... when that is clearly not how this image came about.
If the image is great on its own merits, one wonders why it is then necessary to mislead or lie about its origins...
lukeb wrote: Monito wrote: lukeb wrote:
Then post processing in digital or dodging and burning conventional printing is \"honest\"? How about filters> that\'s honest? Or removing a zit fro a lady\'s face> that\'s honest? IMHO opinion, trying to make the craft honest or dishonest because of creative license taken is, folly.
Yes. However, deception is dishonorable. Failure to admit to the facts (compositing, retouching, manipulation, etc.) when questioned or confronted would be dishonest if it were true. It seems as if there has been some subtle deception but little or no dishonesty.
By your reasoning, most of the photographers on this board are dishonorable.
Where on this board have you seen a disclaimer for post processing. composting or other manipulation on posted captures?
By your standard, every movie or photograph in the last 5 years or so is dishonorable.
And who is going to be the inquisitor or chief confronter? You?
Over and over in this thread, many have tried to make it clear that there is nothing \"dishonorable\" about post-processing. In fact, it is essentially impossible to create a photograph without it. Not sure if you missed that or are just trying to be argumentative.
The issue is about honesty and integrity, not about post-processing. The deception under discussion in this case is not the inclusion of what appears to be an impossible moon, presumably by some post-processing technique or another. In my view, it is fine to use essentially any technique that works when you create photographic art. (Yes, photo journalism has a different set of standards.) If compositing is your thing - go for it. Feel free to adjust lots of different aspects of the image in post to improve it - virtually all good photographers do this. Use tilt/shift/swing techniques at the time you shoot, and add a GND if necessary. Spot out dust or clone it out in post. Clone out the odd, small distracting element if you think that is OK. Use a telephoto or an ultra-wide lens. Stick a CPL on to increase cloud/sky contrast or control reflections. If you shoot BW, use a color filter. Etc...
Just don\'t then claim that your images, unlike those of other photographers, entirely eschew any of these things. Better yet, do as many fine photographers do - Ansel sure did - speak openly and honestly of the techniques you use to create your images and encourage others to use them with taste in order to achieve the visual interpretation that you/they have in mind.
The deception comes when a photographer claims that a photograph is the result of simply being there, great timing and vision, and observing and capturing a thing that really happened... when that is clearly not how this image came about.
If the image is great on its own merits, one wonders why it is then necessary to mislead or lie about its origins...
lukeb wrote: Monito wrote: lukeb wrote:
Then post processing in digital or dodging and burning conventional printing is \"honest\"? How about filters> that\'s honest? Or removing a zit fro a lady\'s face> that\'s honest? IMHO opinion, trying to make the craft honest or dishonest because of creative license taken is, folly.
Yes. However, deception is dishonorable. Failure to admit to the facts (compositing, retouching, manipulation, etc.) when questioned or confronted would be dishonest if it were true. It seems as if there has been some subtle deception but little or no dishonesty.
By your reasoning, most of the photographers on this board are dishonorable.
Where on this board have you seen a disclaimer for post processing. composting or other manipulation on posted captures?
By your standard, every movie or photograph in the last 5 years or so is dishonorable.
And who is going to be the inquisitor or chief confronter? You?
Over and over in this thread, many have tried to make it clear that there is nothing \"dishonorable\" about post-processing. In fact, it is essentially impossible to create a photograph without it. Not sure if you missed that or are just trying to be argumentative.
The issue is about honesty and integrity, not about post-processing. The deception under discussion in this case is not the inclusion of what appears to be an impossible moon, presumably by some post-processing technique or another.
The deception comes when the photographer claims that a photograph is the result of simply being there, great timing and vision, and observing and capturing a thing that really happened... when that is clearly not how this image came about.
I won\'t repeat the whole screed about why post-processing itself is the norm in photography and has been for essentially its 170 year history.
lukeb wrote: Monito wrote: lukeb wrote:
Then post processing in digital or dodging and burning conventional printing is \"honest\"? How about filters> that\'s honest? Or removing a zit fro a lady\'s face> that\'s honest? IMHO opinion, trying to make the craft honest or dishonest because of creative license taken is, folly.
Yes. However, deception is dishonorable. Failure to admit to the facts (compositing, retouching, manipulation, etc.) when questioned or confronted would be dishonest if it were true. It seems as if there has been some subtle deception but little or no dishonesty.
By your reasoning, most of the photographers on this board are dishonorable.
Where on this board have you seen a disclaimer for post processing. composting or other manipulation on posted captures?
By your standard, every movie or photograph in the last 5 years or so is dishonorable.
And who is going to be the inquisitor or chief confronter? You?
Over and over in this thread, many have tried to make it clear that there is nothing \"dishonorable\" about post-processing. In fact, it is essentially impossible to create a photograph without it. Not sure if you missed that or are just trying to be argumentative.
The issue is about honesty and integrity, not about post-processing.
lukeb wrote: Monito wrote: lukeb wrote:
Then post processing in digital or dodging and burning conventional printing is \"honest\"? How about filters> that\'s honest? Or removing a zit fro a lady\'s face> that\'s honest? IMHO opinion, trying to make the craft honest or dishonest because of creative license taken is, folly.
Yes. However, deception is dishonorable. Failure to admit to the facts (compositing, retouching, manipulation, etc.) when questioned or confronted would be dishonest if it were true. It seems as if there has been some subtle deception but little or no dishonesty.
By your reasoning, most of the photographers on this board are dishonorable.
Where on this board have you seen a disclaimer for post processing. composting or other manipulation on posted captures?
By your standard, every movie or photograph in the last 5 years or so is dishonorable.
And who is going to be the inquisitor or chief confronter? You?
Over and over in this thread, many have tried to make it clear that there is nothing \"dishonorable\" about post-processing. In fact, it is essentially impossible to create a photograph without it.
Not sure if you missed that or are just trying to be argumentative.
The issue is about honesty and integrity, not about post-processing.
Feb 11, 2012 at 09:41 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #10336570 « Peter Lik Comedy image »
