Fakeography

[skieur]

like that freelance journalist who dramatised the smoke and fire coming from burning buildings in Lebanon? Reuters refuses to take any of his images now after things came out.

It is very hard to draw a line...

Not hard to draw the line at all. Cloning a microphone out that looks like it is sticking out of a celebrity's head does not change the shot. Same thing with a water bottle, telephone pole, elbow or other body part of someone in the background.

Faking the event or the seriousness of a battle, protest or insurrection is a lot more than simply cleaning up photos for publication.

skieur

 

[skieur]

These images were pushing a certain agenda by the way they were manipulated (added smoke and added flares). They were taking side for one party in that war-like conflict. Even if it was "the right side" (which I doubt is that easy to judge though) the photographer wanted to support, the way he chose was certainly wrong and has nothing to do with serious photojournalism. If photography is used in this way to illustrate news, than it would be better if the news came without any images whatsoever. There are enough ways to manipulate the recipient of news by the wording which is chosen, we do not need even more manipulation by heavily modified images.

I see this as a somewhat isolated incident. There are always idiots around in any field or profession. Any photojournalist in even shooting a regular photo realizes that how he shoots it can influence opinions and even future events. Shooting a politician giving a speech can emphasize the full seats or the empty seats depending on the angle and background.
The apparent height of a snow pile could determine negligence in a wrongful death lawsuit. Any photographic decision made by a photojournalist could be considered subjective and biased. What is a neutral shot of an event in photographic terms? Facial expressions can indicate support, resistance, anger, potential violence etc. What the photographer catches and how it is interpreted in the article may or may not be remotely objective.

I would tend to think that it is wrong to paint photojournalists with the brush of faking shots for personal agendas. Many simply consider themselves as witnesses to history and have not even taken the time to research or form a personal opinion about the event. At the same time however, some of the greatest shots from an artistic and photojournalistic point of view may come from those photographers with a personal bias.

So, it is really difficult to say how much objectivity we want from photojournalists. If objectivity means boring documentary shots which viewers ignore then perhaps A little subjectivity gets more attention to the photos and the articles from newspaper readers. A news editor has to take a more global view than the "purist" who does not see a lot of shades of grey between strict objectivity as an impossible objective and blatant fakery.

skieur

 

[Mufasa]

When i posted i said just editing in general. I don't really mean slitght tweaks and the like but i am more gearing it towards huge editing. I personally don't think that using RAW conversion software to fine tune your exposure is right. I have seen people blurr the background to single out the subject more, another thing i don't agree with (should have used a smaller apreture). I guess what i am trying to say is that i personally don't think somone should fix something that they could have done at the moment of exposure.

There are lots of stories of poeple in film shooting a day on ISO800 film but having the camera set up for ISO200 but due to films "tollerence" towards highlights they could rescue them. So the argument of "they did it in film" IMO is sometimes just as bad as digital.

P.S. Keep in mind these are just my oppinions about photography and plz don't get all trist because i didn't say "In my oppinion" earlier. Just trying to hear other oppinions here

 

[rmh159]

Your sig says it all. Lazy is defined as purposefully not doing enough to support ones needs. If your needs include photography you have to strive after it in every aspect of photography. You must be proficient in all methodology of photography, or, be on the path to learn it.

Typical forum response, but, thanks. I really appreciate your demonstrating your understanding of the intent of the written word.:hail:

Oh Yes, one other thing, I am NOT speaking of beginners or part time photographers who do this as a hobby and are where they want to be. I am speaking of those who use the internet, not the intense practice of every aspect of the craft, not just digital, to garner enough knowledge to reply on a lot of forums. If this is not you then you shouldn't have taken this personally.

Arrogance. A misused term. Arrogance means the thought process of personal perfection that subjugates others under yourself in thought, nowadays, or level of royalty, in the earlier years of royalty, think Henry the 8th.

In this case I posted a thought that I was willing to defend. No one but yourself paid attention. Forums are like this. You get a lot of people asking for help and more than one bursting a bubble against one misunderstood post by one defensive individual. Perhaps you should stop posting and start listening. I came on here to sound out this body of members. Until you, I thought this a interesting group.

I am semi-retired. 59. How old are you? Doesn't matter. 47 years dealing with chemicals, people and stuff and junk.

Just really starting on the internet and digital. I think the moderators should take better care of their responsibilities.

:roll: Get over it. I'd just advise you that if you're going to post and overly generalize about people being lazy, not knowing photography because they shoot digital / use a PC, etc... don't act all surprised /offended when you piss people off. I did think your suggestion that the Mods should censor my post though... cute.

I respect your experience and I'm sure your photography is high quality but it always strikes me as "odd" (for lack of a better adjective) when people put down digital / PC-editing / the internet as a learning tool because they've spent X years shooting film, learning the art, etc.

The bottom line is that all of this stuff now exists... fighting it and putting it down is foolish. There is enough info available online to learn this stuff quickly. Times change... those who don't change with them will be left behind.

In an attempt to bring this back on topic... I still stand by the point that film / digital / darkroom / PC-editing is all irrelevant as opposed to the quality of the photographer. If the person doesn't know how to use the tools correctly it will show regardless of the tools. Editing photos on a PC isn't exactly easy, take a look at some of the pics posted on this forum. The PC-edited shots that will look REALLY good require a lot of time and experience... it's not like you can just pull a shot up in Photoshop and click the "Make It Look Good" button and that's it.

The art of photography will become blurred as digital-imaging with the PC tools and higher quality cameras become cheaper and easier to use. It is what is, no use crying over it.

 

[Mike_E]

You'd almost think you people were talking about religion. Lighten up folks.

The only thing you can judge about a news service is their body of work. The rules placed upon the employees and or contributors will in fact shine through in their content. The occasional aberration happens and the services reaction to it will be telling as well.

Also, if someone wants to be Holier-than-thou about being a Perfect Photographer and always getting it right in camera... just remember that in photography the End does justify the Means because the image presented to the public is all that will be judged. No matter how much the photographer boasts, what you see is really all you get.

These last two paragraphs are not opposing because Journalism is exactly the same as Art in that you Choose the medium with which you practice your discipline!

A bad journalist is just that. Whether they embellish a story or a photo is absolutely the same and just as reprehensible either way.

A bad Artist is no different. If they butcher their ideas then there is no help for them no matter the media they use.

So, be happy, go shoot something.

mike

 

[TLTownsend]

I am not against programs like photoshop. Though I do feel one can take it to extreme as far as when it becomes a different form of art than photography.

Photoshop however is more than just simple clicks and plugins. Many people use it as an easy program but in reality it is very complex.

There was time when if you were using an SLR that could be set to Auto well you just weren't a photographer you had to use a manual camera. Well the years and time have changed that. Photography like all forms of art changes.

The nice thing is since the Digital camera has came about more and more people are getting into Photography and through programs like Photoshop Lightroom and host of others more people are able to learn about filters and other things. These cameras and programs make Photography affordable to many. Not everyone can go out and buy a darkroom setup and buy tons of filters and not many of us want to spread vaseline on our lenses to get an effect anymore. Using vaseline, breathing on the lens, thin colored plastic, colored glass, circular polarizers and other filters are all ways that have been used Photographers to create or enhance their photos. Programs like photoshop basically does those things and more. It is nothing more than another tool to use.

Also there is the 3D graphics world which now want photo textures instead of trying to create their own textures. You need a program like photoshop to take your photo and map it so they can apply to their 3d objects. People that use a program called Poser apply photos of peoples skin to their characters they create. The world of Photography and this new age of digital cameras, computers and software. Has opened up bunch of new avenues for Photographers to explore not only in the way they shoot but sell.

We may like all the changes that have happened and we may not consider many of them proper Photography but I really don't think many of us would want to go back to days of Ansel Adams and other greats of the past and use their a equipment to call ourselves Photographers. After all they would have every right to call these new fangled things we have acquired since their day as not pure photography.

Don't discount the new and remember the old for knowing both increase the chance of attaining and capturing that perfect shot. Which means maybe in another 20,000 shots I might get a good one. At least I can hope.

 

[Marci Renee]

Even with film you have to do post production. I was taught expose for the shadows develop for the highlights. I apply this to my digital camera also, thought it reads light differently then my film camera. Film and digital film need and go through post production its not a bad thing.

 

[Joxby]

ish...this thread shoots off on so many irrelivent tangents, I'm trying not to read it.
Too many agendas and not enough concise to the point I think this/stuff, relating to the thread starters actual point, oh so many lines ago.
To be perfectly honest, If an image is to be posted as a photograph, I dont give a wet fart how much processing is done, as long as it looks like a scene that exists/could exist,
I dont care about peoples individual preferences to the colour/saturation of the sky or whatever, so they think it was a bluer, so they think it was greyer...so what...thats cool with me, I do know it wasn't radio active neon purple, and there folks is where the road divides for me, (allthough I could be persuaded, Northern lights bouncing off the ionesphere through a rubber weather ballon or some crap)
Overdone HDR follows this route, as beautifull as it is, its a manufactured scene, I know it doesn't exist, nobody free of LSD see's it that way, and that photograph has become something else.
What is the point of a camera if the scenes produced are so far removed from the original, they might aswell have be made from scratch. Owning/shooting/using one becomes a short odds minor detail non speaking bit part existance.
B/W HDR you say.....well don't.....I dunno....still trying to work it out myself, it doesn't fit into my pigeon holes very neatly, I could easily hate it by default, but both my IQ points are busy right now..


gawd.....I feel.....purged

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Here are the guidelines for photographers, from Reuters. AP has a similar set of guidelines or code of conduct for photographers.

http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/

Every great once in a while, I get a little wire service work thrown my way, and these guidelines are pretty much the way I shoot all events. Some editors ask that I tweak the sharpness a bit and so on, but no cropping of any kind- and then some editors just ask for the straight image, the way it was shot in the camera, and they do whatever adjustments they feel are necessary to the image.

As far as art is concerned, well, isn't that where we can really let our creative juices flow? That's what makes this stuff so much fun.

 

[RMThompson]

Bottom line:

1. Digital Photography is just as relevant and artistic as film photography. The fact there was a lot more film photographers for years, throw away cameras for example.

2. Post processing is your choice unless your a photo journalist, but if you want to get all high and might about it, remember, even a white balance is processing.

3. The picture posted by the OP was awesome!

 

[RMThompson]

Oh and I use a freaking D50 with a 50mm lens and I don't consider myself lazy!

 

[JHF Photography]

The good news is that film is far from dead. Actually, it is enjoying a limited resurgence from digital users who actually want to make a photograhp by themselves, as a thinking individual.

As a digital shooter, this comment is rather offensive. I was going to stay out of this thread (as it has been covered many times before) but I had to comment on this remark. I have not shot film, nor do I have a desire to shoot film. *edit*I have absolutely nothing against film, I think it is capable of amazing images, it just isn't the medium for me.*edit* However, I consider myself a "thinking individual" and I strive to make all my photographs "myself" (not even entirely sure what this means.... do you think the digital camera and the computer make the photographs for us?) using the tools and medium that I am most comfortable working in.

One other point... you have stated that you feel the moderators should "take better care of their responsibilities". The moderators here do a fantastic job, and perhaps you should consider avoiding generalized statements about the thinking capabilities of digital shooters if you don't want to deal with negative responses to your comments.

I dont give a wet fart how much processing is done, as long as it looks like a scene that exists/could exist,
I dont care about peoples individual preferences to the colour/saturation of the sky or whatever, so they think it was a bluer, so they think it was greyer...so what...thats cool with me, I do know it wasn't radio active neon purple, and there folks is where the road divides for me

Ok, just playing a little bit of devil's advocate..... you say as long as the scene could exist, that's fine, so no neon purple. I understand what you're saying, but let me ask you this question; what about black and white photography? Do you feel that this is ok, or is it not also a scene that has no existence (in nature, for example)?

Bottom line:

1. Digital Photography is just as relevant and artistic as film photography. The fact there was a lot more film photographers for years, throw away cameras for example.

2. Post processing is your choice unless your a photo journalist, but if you want to get all high and might about it, remember, even a white balance is processing.

3. The picture posted by the OP was awesome!

Thank you, that summed up my view of this discussion beautifully.

Oh and I use a freaking D50 with a 50mm lens and I don't consider myself lazy!

Ditto!



Jason

 

[RacePhoto]

I think some people are missing the point.

Photojournalism is not the same as art.

Three basic rules for photojournalism, very simple:

1) No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image.
(thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image)

2) No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image.
(thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image)

3) No excessive color manipulation.

The photo should be honest and not altered to mislead the viewer.


All the rules of photography as an art:

-

(no I didn't leave this blank by accident, there are no rules!)

The camera can be anything from a pinhole in a shoe box, to a $40,000 digital back on a 2 1/4 x 2 1/4. You can take film, paper negatives, digital, albumen, or whatever else you prefer... IT DOESN'T MATTER!

But for the film defenders (many who just can't afford digital, so they write from jealousy) and the people who claim they are pure because they don't use editing software. Please give it a break. No one is impressed with your arrogant snobbery.

Just about everyone here takes pictures, the way they want, because that's what they decided for them self. Not because someone else tells us what methods or what medium, or how to edit what we like. The people who don't are probably under contract, or hired to shoot with whatever they use.

Calling it Fakeography is an broad insult hurled at a majority of the people here, right from the start.

 

[JHF Photography]

Well said, RacePhoto! I think you and RMThompson summed it up best.

 

[RacePhoto]

Well said, RacePhoto! I think you and RMThompson summed it up best.

Salty old curmudgeon on a soap box. Some days I can't help myself. :blushing:

Less words. Have fun doing what you like. Don't let the self appointed thought dictators tell you what you personally enjoy or how you should do it. :lmao: