Is digital photography a lie?!

[AndreeOnline]

Therefore we all take liberties with editing.

Perhaps it is easier to look at it like this: there is a subset of photographers who value the effort and authenticity that it takes to photograph the sunset in Key West or Bali by actually going there and capturing it in camera.

And whether or not anyone here is in that subset or not, we all understand the difference between that and doing a Photoshop sky replacement.

 

[deep diver]

I am afraid you are missing the point. The reason for the separation of the two terms have been explained in at least two posts already.

I've tried to explain the difference between an out-of-the-camera photo, an OOTC photo with global adjustments and an OOTC photo with global adjustments + manipulations. This was meant to be the foundation for the discussion whether or not photography is a lie (which in turn is easy to answer).

But after a few unsuccessful attempts I gave up.

It becomes difficult when "cloning a third eye" in someone's forehead gets compared to focal length choices with the assumption that a wide angle lens or tele lens is "equally deceptive".

Maybe people were just joking around, but it didn't seem like it. The discussion wasn't worth pursuing.

With respect..................... I feel like we are being lectured and that you are more committed to your own conceptualization than to a discussion.

 

[AndreeOnline]

I feel like we are being lectured and that you are more committed to your conceptualization than to a discussion.

I wanted to start by pointing out a few things that are obvious to me—to align our world views, let's say.

Either agree, so that we can continue from there. Or point out the flaws in my thinking.

I think what I got was a lot more "who the hell is this guy posting here all of a sudden, in our closed knit group of friends", instead of arguments for or against what I actually wrote.

 

[MacDaddyPanda]

The OP hasn't even contributed beyond the 1st page. But is digital photography a lie. By itself I don't think so. It depends on the intent of the presenter. The one that took the photo. And to what degree they manipulated the photo and to what end/purpose.

 

[mollyc]

The OP hasn't even contributed beyond the 1st page. But is digital photography a lie. By itself I don't think so. It depends on the intent of the presenter. The one that took the photo. And to what degree they manipulated the photo and to what end/purpose.

The OP is a regular in the photo forum. He is our resident iPhoneographer. ? I think life probably caught up to him in the meantime. I’m sure he’ll be back eventually.

 

[Hughmac]

@AndreeOnline, in my job I took a lot of evidential photos with the provided digital camera, none of which were post processed in any way. If the case went to court I'm sure the photos would have been examined for tampering before being accepted as evidence.
In my personal life I have taken a lot of digital pictures, a few of which required no post treatment whatsoever. These are classed as photographs; but the ones where I have cloned out for example a distracting leaf, am I to understand these are now classed as images?

By your definition I am not a photographer but an imager. Maybe this forum should be renamed to Digital Imagery?

Cheers

Hugh

 

[akash.nu]

The OP hasn't even contributed beyond the 1st page. But is digital photography a lie. By itself I don't think so. It depends on the intent of the presenter. The one that took the photo. And to what degree they manipulated the photo and to what end/purpose.

I am here. Lurking around and reading through the comments. The discussion folded around this topic is beyond my expectations.

The OP is a regular in the photo forum. He is our resident iPhoneographer. I think life probably caught up to him in the meantime. I’m sure he’ll be back eventually.

And here I am.

It has been a solid read so far, seeing all the difference point of views coming out in this thread.

@AndreeOnline, in my job I took a lot of evidential photos with the provided digital camera, none of which were post processed in any way. If the case went to court I'm sure the photos would have been examined for tampering before being accepted as evidence.
In my personal life I have taken a lot of digital pictures, a few of which required no post treatment whatsoever. These are classed as photographs; but the ones where I have cloned out for example a distracting leaf, am I to understand these are now classed as images?

By your definition I am not a photographer but an imager. Maybe this forum should be renamed to Digital Imagery?

Cheers

Hugh

Pretty much all of us are imagers.

 

[AndreeOnline]

...but the ones where I have cloned out for example a distracting leaf, am I to understand these are now classed as images?

You are free to classify them any way you want.

"Manipulated photos". "Edited photos". "Retouched photos"

In order to not use two versions of the word 'photo' I chose 'images' for the purpose of this thread—and to make a clear distinction between something that was captured by a camera and something that is perhaps based on a photo but then edited without restrictions concerning the authenticity of the captured moment.

By your definition I am not a photographer but an imager. Maybe this forum should be renamed to Digital Imagery?

Are you paraphrasing me without having read what I've written, or did you read it but not understand it:

I'm loosely using the term 'photo' to be an actual event and the term 'image' to be everything else. If you're using a camera to create photos or images, I think you're a photographer.

?

 

[steveash]

I am afraid you are missing the point. The reason for the separation of the two terms have been explained in at least two posts already.

I've tried to explain the difference between an out-of-the-camera photo, an OOTC photo with global adjustments and an OOTC photo with global adjustments + manipulations. This was meant to be the foundation for the discussion whether or not photography is a lie (which in turn is easy to answer).

But after a few unsuccessful attempts I gave up.

It becomes difficult when "cloning a third eye" in someone's forehead gets compared to focal length choices with the assumption that a wide angle lens or tele lens is "equally deceptive".

Maybe people were just joking around, but it didn't seem like it. The discussion wasn't worth pursuing.

I didn’t intend to offend, only to point out in a light-hearted way, that a camera can misrepresent the truth as easily as a computer.

This summer I saw several photos of crowded beaches on the front pages of newspapers along with dramatic headlines about over-crowding. As a photographer I could see that a telephoto lens was used to compress the scene and make the people appear far closer together than they actually were. There was no computer or darkroom manipulation but the technique of the photographer was used to misrepresent the truth.

In addition, the photographer may have used a polariser or perhaps a graduated ND to improve the lighting and reduce glare, deepening the sky colour and making it appear better weather than it actually was. Perhaps behind the photographer, hidden from view was something that might change the story completely. Perhaps a view of people wearing face-coverings and carefully social distancing? In such case, the photographer chose to censor the full information that they saw and to exaggerate their message. What if the photographer had paid the people to stand in front of the lens? Was the photo the truth or a lie? Perhaps a part of the truth but not the whole truth? In this case it was certainly used to deceive the viewer.

Now if there was some dirt on the sensor which was carefully disguised in the corner of the photo, does it suddenly become an image rather than a photograph? What if instead the dirt was cropped out of the image rather than cloned out? Is that OK?

In my opinion, there are so many shades of grey that it is impossible to mark out one picture as a photo and another as a manipulation and even if you could, a creative image has no less value than a photo that is purely a documentation. Potentially it has far more value because it has been created with artistic intent rather than just to represent a scene.

 

[AndreeOnline]

...but the technique of the photographer was used to misrepresent the truth.

A very real risk and valid question to raise. But this only relates to the photographer, not the photo.

In addition, the photographer may have used a polariser or perhaps a graduated ND to improve the lighting and reduce glare, deepening the sky colour and making it appear better weather than it actually was.

My distinction between "photo" and "image" has nothing to do if the situation is spontaneous or completely arranged. You can choose any lens, bring your own lighting, make-up artist and props. You can spray flowers with water droplets....

What if the photographer had paid the people to stand in front of the lens? Was the photo the truth or a lie?

The truth lies in the fact that some people actually stood in front of the lens.

Now if there was some dirt on the sensor which was carefully disguised in the corner of the photo, does it suddenly become an image rather than a photograph?

Based on the simple and clear rules to be applied, if you clone away the speck: then yes.

What if instead the dirt was cropped out of the image rather than cloned out? Is that OK?

Yes.

In my opinion, there are so many shades of grey that it is impossible to mark out one picture as a photo and another as a manipulation...

In my mind, I don't think there is a single shade of gray to be honest.

...and even if you could, a creative image has no less value than a photo that is purely a documentation. Potentially it has far more value because it has been created with artistic intent rather than just to represent a scene.

Many images have far more value, due to the fact that all commercial photography would land in the 'image' category.

 

[mollyc]

wow

 

[steveash]

A very real risk and valid question to raise. But this only relates to the photographer, not the photo.


My distinction between "photo" and "image" has nothing to do if the situation is spontaneous or completely arranged. You can choose any lens, bring your own lighting, make-up artist and props. You can spray flowers with water droplets....


The truth lies in the fact that some people actually stood in front of the lens.


Based on the simple and clear rules to be applied, if you clone away the speck: then yes.


Yes.


In my mind, I don't think there is a single shade of gray to be honest.


Many images have far more value, due to the fact that all commercial photography would land in the 'image' category.

Then you’ve clearly created your own definition of what a photo is or is not. And this definition is unrelated to whether truth is represented or not. So perhaps the question should be, what value is there in this definition? Why do we need it?

 

[Hughmac]

You are free to classify them any way you want.

"Manipulated photos". "Edited photos". "Retouched photos"

In order to not use two versions of the word 'photo' I chose 'images' for the purpose of this thread—and to make a clear distinction between something that was captured by a camera and something that is perhaps based on a photo but then edited without restrictions concerning the authenticity of the captured moment.


Are you paraphrasing me without having read what I've written, or did you read it but not understand it:


?

To give you benefit of the doubt, it may be that I didn't understand your point properly, but reading again I think you mean that a photo has to be true to life to qualify (what is seen in the viewfinder), with global enhancements allowed, but in the example of my leaf cloning out later on, it does not pass truly as a photograph?
However if I had thought to physically remove the leaf before pressing the shutter, it turns into a real photo?

Cheers

Hugh

 

[steveash]

To give you benefit of the doubt, it may be that I didn't understand your point properly, but reading again I think you mean that a photo has to be true to life to qualify (what is seen in the viewfinder), with global enhancements allowed, but in the example of my leaf cloning out later on, it does not pass truly as a photograph?
However if I had thought to physically remove the leaf before pressing the shutter, it turns into a real photo?

Cheers

Hugh

I think that is the definition. If there is a manipulation of the truth before the shutter is pressed then it is a photo. If the manipulation comes after then it is an image.

I’m not sure quite how that fits with press/media rules where such things are wrestled with but it does seem like an over simplification of an endlessly complex issue.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Then you’ve clearly created your own definition of what a photo is or is not. And this definition is unrelated to whether truth is represented or not.

I am talking about an absolute, physical truth. Free from interpretation 'after the fact'.

To give you benefit of the doubt, it may be that I didn't understand your point properly, but reading again I think you mean that a photo has to be true to life to qualify (what is seen in the viewfinder), with global enhancements allowed, but in the example of my leaf cloning out later on, it does not pass truly as a photograph?

Yes.

However if I had thought to physically remove the leaf before pressing the shutter, it turns into a real photo?

100%

Simple test question after the shutter has been pressed or remotely released: did the camera sensor see this?

You make a global adjustment to a raw file. And now you re-evaluate the photo: did the camera see this? Yes, it actually did. The preview you had earlier was just a preset interpretation of the raw data. You can reinterpret the data, as long as it is a global adjustment. Moving the 'shadow' or 'highlight' sliders in Lightroom counts as global adjustment, as long as no other masks are being used.

You crop the image. Now look at the resulting frame and ask: did the camera sensor see this? Yes it did. It even saw a bit more, but it did see what is left in the crop.

If you clone out stuff, or add things like a composite and ask the same question, the answer will always be 'no'.

This is the reason you can prepare or plan an image any way you want. Use a gradiated filter. Select a crazy lens. But once you press the shutter, that moment is 'frozen in time' and NOT open for reinterpretation.

 

[AndreeOnline]

If there is a manipulation of the truth before the shutter is pressed then it is a photo.

I'm not sure exactly what this means.

In the OP's video, one example is a girl looking bored in an elevator with people passing by. A scene from 'back in the day'.

A quick glance might give the impression (as stated in the video) that it was a skilfully timed snapshot of a girl caught unaware suffering life in general.

As it turned out the photo was staged. The camera and photo can only capture the truth though, which in this case was a number of photos where they tried various looks, moods and movement. But that was the truth of it: it was a staged scene that got captured many times and then there was a final selected photo that best represented the photographer/artists intention.

A lie would be to sell it off as a candid snapshot. But that has nothing to do with the photo and what took place.

 

[Hughmac]

Interesting, and thanks for the insight, but I won't be giving up on my artistic tweaks as I see fit any time soon

Cheers

Hugh

 

[Clix Pix]

Why do I have the feeling that some time recently this guy was bored, started looking around the site, found this thread and decided to jump in to it and spout off, and then when responses came, promptly spouted off some more, repeating a lot of what he'd already written.....and continues to do so? What is really his point? I daresay it goes far beyond what he has stated it is.

Someone earlier in the thread noted that it seemed as though this member were lecturing us -- a thought which had occurred to me as well, due to the tone of his posts -- and while that is indeed rather evident, the other thought which has popped into my mind is that it is not unlikely that actually we're seeing some trolling going on here, for whatever reason.....

 

[MCAsan]

All art is a lie. Why would you think otherwise?

 

[deep diver]

Why do I have the feeling that some time recently this guy was bored, started looking around the site, found this thread and decided to jump in to it and spout off, and then when responses came, promptly spouted off some more, repeating a lot of what he'd already stated.....and continues to do so? What is really his point? I daresay it goes far beyond what he has stated it is.

Someone earlier in the thread noted that it seemed as though this member were lecturing us -- a thought which had occurred to me as well, due to the tone of his posts -- and while that is indeed rather evident, the other thought which has popped into my mind is that it is not unlikely that actually we're seeing some trolling going on here, for whatever reason.....

That's why I've bailed out of the discussion. I'm going back to hitting my hand with a hammer. It's more fun.

 

[Clix Pix]

Best way to deal with a trolling situation: just don't respond, don't jump to the bait, don't react to the comments which are meant to incite.....

 

[Arran]

Depends on the purpose of the photograph and the intent of the manipulation:

1. If the purpose is reportage then manipulation could move away from the truth.
2. If the purpose is artistic expression then manipulation could move it towards the truth (or whatever story the artist was trying to convey)

But, in either case, it could really go either way.

And this isn't a digital thing. Darkroom-dwellers were dodging, burning in, vignetting, under/over developing, fixing parallel lines, bleaching and retouching decades before digital. Practically a necessity.

 

[deep diver]

Why do I have the feeling that some time recently this guy was bored, started looking around the site, found this thread and decided to jump in to it and spout off, and then when responses came, promptly spouted off some more, repeating a lot of what he'd already written.....and continues to do so? What is really his point? I daresay it goes far beyond what he has stated it is.

Someone earlier in the thread noted that it seemed as though this member were lecturing us -- a thought which had occurred to me as well, due to the tone of his posts -- and while that is indeed rather evident, the other thought which has popped into my mind is that it is not unlikely that actually we're seeing some trolling going on here, for whatever reason.....

Do you remember the good old days when this is what we meant by a troll?

 

[r.harris1]

I am afraid you are missing the point. The reason for the separation of the two terms have been explained in at least two posts already.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I don’t see a real need to separate the terms, regardless of the number of posts it gets explained in, but that’s just me, and was simply explaining my point of view. It’s not like there’s an objective truth on this topic.

The discussion wasn't worth pursuing.

Very possibly.

 

[mollyc]

Also, a digital camera sensor doesn't necessarily see the same thing as film - and neither sees what the human eye sees. So right off the bat nothing will ever be truthful.

And there is literally no difference between cloning out a stray leaf from an image vs moving it before shooting the frame.