A little rant #2

[Greg McCary]

I agree totaly with you on this Marc. Trying to pass off a fake rainbow as the real thing is wrong. A lie is a lie. But there has been times that I have replaced skies or removed items from my pictures without stating so to see if my PS skills were good enough to pull it off. I have seen some pictures here a PR that are times that I thought were almost to amazing to be true, but the photographer insists that it is real. I would never PS a piece of work and claim it as he real thing if it was not, no matter how good at PS I get.
Everyone has their definition of what photography is. or what it should be. I feel Trog makes valid points, adding elements to an image and then trying to pass them off as the real thing is just wrong.
Greg

[readingr]

I agree totaly with you on this Marc. Trying to pass off a fake rainbow as the real thing is wrong. A lie is a lie. But there has been times that I have replaced skies or removed items from my pictures without stating so to see if my PS skills were good enough to pull it off. I have seen some pictures here a PR that are times that I thought were almost to amazing to be true, but the photographer insists that it is real. I would never PS a piece of work and claim it as he real thing if it was not, no matter how good at PS I get.
Everyone has their definition of what photography is. or what it should be. I feel Trog makes valid points, adding elements to an image and then trying to pass them off as the real thing is just wrong.
Greg

So where do you draw the line?

Does a double exposure count? The fact that you have a landscape without moon and then swap lens to change the size of the moon and retake the shot? What is the difference between photoshoping a moon in, because digital camera's don't tend to have double exposure features because its expected to do this in post processing.

Colouring prints which we used to do with chemicals in days gone by, is this verboten?

Where is this imaginary locus and how can you possibly define it?

It is up to the individual photographer to define when creating the final concept in the mind's eye. You don't ask an artist how the final painting or sculpture was arrived at. It could have been drawn using a projector to give the outline... All that is considered important in this instance is the final outcome, not the steps used to arrive there.

Photojournalism, as trog seems to define pure photography, is another form of photography, which I compare to an Archaeologist who draws sketches of where objects were found on a dig or a product sketch used to create a mould... This has to be accurate to what is viewed not what an artist has in mind. However, even in this instance, the photographer will not capture what is not required in the picture.

They are both valid process of the photographers toolkit and I am sure that we all use or don't use the tools as we see fit to get the final intention we have in mind.

As a photographer, both film and digital, will spend time composing in the viewfinder what I have in mind before pressing the button which is the start of the process. I will always think of how the picture will look after I have developed the film, either film or digital and look at the techniques available to me to get the intended photograph.

Roger

[Ronnoco]

I should add, based on my own experience, that anyone who thinks that a photojournalist is or can be totally accurate is being unrealistic. Photography is selective and the techniques of composition used to create a quality shot also come with the "view" of the photographer.

To use just a basic example, I have shot celebrities and politicians in auditoriums, stadiums, etc. Depending on the angle I shoot from, I can make the venue seem either full and crowded or half empty. Readers of course are curious about the turnout, but unless it is mentioned in the article, there will be even more attention on any shot that shows the audience in the background.

As a photojournalist, do you sacrifice a good shot because it may not be interpreted as accurate and as a photojournalist how do you judge "accuracy" ?

There is one famous shot of George Bush speaking to reporters on the white house lawn with the visual emphasis of the photo on his dog close by. It is quite humourous, but... I don't think that George Bush would appreciate the serious content of his speech being "side-swiped" by the humour in the photo. How do you "measure" the "accuracy" of that shot?

So photojournalists are still photographers and as such the skills that they use to compose and set up a shot are the same. They may not be faking anything but that does not necessarily mean that their shots are accurate either. Accuracy is in the eye of the viewer.

Ronnoco

[readingr]

I should add, based on my own experience, that anyone who thinks that a photojournalist is or can be totally accurate is being unrealistic. Photography is selective and the techniques of composition used to create a quality shot also come with the "view" of the photographer.

To use just a basic example, I have shot celebrities and politicians in auditoriums, stadiums, etc. Depending on the angle I shoot from, I can make the venue seem either full and crowded or half empty. Readers of course are curious about the turnout, but unless it is mentioned in the article, there will be even more attention on any shot that shows the audience in the background.

As a photojournalist, do you sacrifice a good shot because it may not be interpreted as accurate and as a photojournalist how do you judge "accuracy" ?

There is one famous shot of George Bush speaking to reporters on the white house lawn with the visual emphasis of the photo on his dog close by. It is quite humourous, but... I don't think that George Bush would appreciate the serious content of his speech being "side-swiped" by the humour in the photo. How do you "measure" the "accuracy" of that shot?

So photojournalists are still photographers and as such the skills that they use to compose and set up a shot are the same. They may not be faking anything but that does not necessarily mean that their shots are accurate either. Accuracy is in the eye of the viewer.

Ronnoco

Nicely put. It's what I was trying to say, but badly in my case.

Roger