Is digital photography a lie?!

[mtbdudex]

I went biking yesterday afternoon, captured a sunset as finishing

Using adjustments, I opened the crop slightly, hit auto, upped the exposure just a smidgen. Then yea, I’m guilty, upped saturation and vibrancy also, just a smidgen though.

Result, I posted this ..

 

[scubachap]

... sees what the human eye sees. So right off the bat nothing will ever be truthful.

I completely agree and just as well really, all our imagery would be upside down with a big blank bit where the optic nerve comes in! Our brains not only flip the image but do their own bit of image cloning constantly. Our eyes lie all the time and our brains constantly retouch the images to make them work with the physical world we experience. So what do our cameras record? Not what we see in a raw sense. They've been engineered to try and match our brain processed mental images of the world around us rather than any absolute truth.

 

[mtbdudex]

^^
Now, I took those on the best camera, the one with me, iPhone 11Pro.
However, my sons iPhone 12Pro, it takes “better” pictures, and possibly I’d do less / no adjustments...
Hmmm
Further , the display on his iPhone 12Pro is better than mine, so same photo looks different on each,

 

[mollyc]

apparently we were mistaken.

 

[steveash]

apparently we were mistaken.

View attachment 1685314

"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."

Ansel Adams

 

[erayser]

Wow... this thread. I am both guilty and innocent of everything posted in this thread... most likely leaning more to one side than the other. btw... I like Photoshop more than LR... because I'm good at it... but don't tell my viewers. LOL...

 

[kallisti]

In general, this has been an interesting thread to read.

Too many nuances to address.

My own personal feelings:

An image is a lie when it pretends to present something as “truth” that is patently false. Specifically, making changes in post that completely alter the message of an image for political reasons while offering it up as the “truth” and something that hasn’t been manipulated in post.

That is not okay and crosses the threshold of “lie” with all of the negative connotations associated with that term. I find it reprehensible.

Making subtle (or not so subtle) changes in post for the sake of “art”, I’m fine with. The expectation isn’t that the image is “truth” in some objective sense, but rather that it’s the photographer’s take on the subject and perhaps in a broader sense their way of interpreting the world we live in. All good.

It either works for viewers of the images or it doesn’t. Strikes a chord or it doesn’t. All ”lies” in a philosophical sense, but harmless lies. Lies that ask the viewer to see the world in a different way, from a different perspective. Harmless (and perhaps even beneficial).

As opposed to photographic lies that intend to shape public opinion by presenting themselves as “true” or “accurate” despite manipulation in post. Sophistry, making the worse argument appear the better via manipulations in post that aren’t documented or admitted. Propaganda. That is a major problem for me.

 

[deeddawg]

With the various techniques and post processing we all get involved in these days I have been asked by a few of my friends if I’m lying to them when I ask for their opinions on some of my shots.

Some of my friends are off the opinion that a digitally enhanced / edited picture is essentially a lie and shouldn’t be classed as “real photography”.

Sounds like they've never dodged/burned prints in a darkroom, something photographers have been doing to enhance / improve their photographs for the better part of forever. Same for various enhancing lens filters commonly used in the film era.

Computers/digital photography have made adjusting/modifying the resulting photograph much easier than before, but the photographer using his/her artistic talents to improve on the resulting output nothing new.

 

[robgendreau]

I wonder if videography forums have questions like this.

Be an awful world if filmmakers couldn't lie in their photography...I just watched a video of the making of 1917 for example, and marveled at the subterfuge.

 

[v3rlon]

It is only a cheating lie if it is better than mine. Then it is always a cheating lie and a poor hack at best.

Staged or manipulated photos are about as old as the art itself. Forced perspective, props, actors, posing, and so on predate cameras by a civilization or so. Soft filters, star filters, polarizers, lenses wider and longer than 50mm, cropping, airbrushing, tape, makeup, hair dye, and lighting predate digital by a century.

Photography is an ART. If you LIKE the image, it is good. If you don't, it isn't (for you - because art is subjective).

Now if I photoshop your head onto the body of a bank robber and purport that to be 'evidence,' that is clearly an absolute lie.

If I comp an epic sunset behind an otherwise bland landscape, that is just art.

Sheesh, is Superman a lie because we don't have a flying alien living in Kansas? No, it is a story.

As long as you are showing images and asking them what they think as "do you like it" as opposed to "would it hold up in court," no, it is not a cheat or a lie (unless it is better than mine).