3 ms·

I draw the line at object recognition. If the processing involves semantic meaning (e.g. this is sky, this is a face) instead of geometric meaning (e.g. this is

by mrob 6y ago

I draw the line at object recognition. If the processing involves semantic meaning (e.g. this is sky, this is a face) instead of geometric meaning (e.g. this is an edge, this is a Bayer filter artifact) then it's lying. It doesn't matter if the object recognition is done by AI (e.g. faking depth of field by blurring background) or by humans applying selective processing (e.g. painting out red-eye effect, or using a graduated neutral-density filter to enhance sky). Honest processing has no awareness of what objects are in the scene.

jxcl 6y ago
I don't really agree with this. I'm not sure what my definition of lying is but of course it entirely depends on the purpose of the photo. A photojournalist cropping out an important piece of context is definitely lying. Me cropping out another tourist of a photo I took of a friend is not lying. If I'm editing photos and someone has a temporary blemish or a pimple, I'm more than likely to edit it out. We don't remember faces to the same level of detail as a camera can, so it feels more correct to touch up such blemishes.
- ghaff 6y ago
  >A photojournalist cropping out an important piece of context is definitely lying. Me cropping out another tourist of a photo I took of a friend is not lying. Rules are even stricter than that for photojournalists. Photographers have lost jobs just for editing out extraneous objects (like a telephone pole "growing out" of someone's head) to make a photo look better. The thinking is likely along the lines of it's a slippery slope once you start editing out things.
  - shock-value 6y ago
    Even within journalism there is a world of difference between cropping and outright manipulation.
- msla 6y ago
  > If I'm editing photos and someone has a temporary blemish or a pimple, I'm more than likely to edit it out. How Un-Cromwellian! https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/warts-and-all.html https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/warts-and-all.html > This phrase 'warts and all' is said to derive from Oliver Cromwell's instructions to the painter Sir Peter Lely, when commissioning a painting. > At the time of the alleged instruction, Cromwell was Lord Protector of England. Lely had been portrait artist to Charles I and, following the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, he was appointed as Charles II's Principal Painter in Ordinary. > Lely's painting style was, as was usual at the time, intended to flatter the sitter. Royalty in particular expected portraits to show them in the best possible light, if not to be outright fanciful. Lely's painting of Charles II shows what was expected of a painting of a head of state in the 17th century. It emphasizes the shapely royal calves - a prized fashion feature at that time. > Cromwell did have a preference for being portrayed as a gentleman of military bearing, but was well-known as being opposed to all forms of personal vanity. This 'puritan Roundhead' versus 'dashing Cavalier' shorthand is often used to denote the differences in style of the two opposing camps in the English Commonwealth and subsequent Restoration. It is entirely plausible that he would have issued a 'warts and all' instruction when being painted and it is unlikely that Lely would have modified his style and produced the 'warts and all' portrait of Cromwell unless someone told him to. Of course, the source of the phrase is, itself, unsourced, and Cromwell likely never said it.
sudosysgen 6y ago
The line is still very blurry. How about a camera using the depth information that is already necessary for AF to automatically crop out of process differently out of focus areas, thus detecting objects? How about a camera automatically focusing on an eye?
- mrob 6y ago
  If there's no way to prove that semantic processing was used then the rule is unenforceable so you might as well permit it. Cropping the photograph is indistinguishable from using a different camera, and changing the focus is indistinguishable from getting the focus right by accident. Cropping and focus can both be used deceptively, but it's a different type of deception from selective editing of an image, e.g. changing somebody's skin texture.
shard 6y ago
Converting the full spectrum lights in nature into color filtered photons captured on a sensor with an artificial color profile, it's own resolution and pixel arrangement, its own lens specifics that is the camera, then converted to another limited color palette with another artificial color profile and it's own resolution and pixel arrangement that is the display, in order to simulate the colors of nature as detected by yet another set of filtered detectors with it's own color profile, resolution, neuron arrangement, and lens specifics that is the human eye, there is already no such thing as objective truth, every step involves heavy interpretation. Therefore there really is no such thing as honest processing either.

by mrob 6y ago

jxcl 6y ago

I don't really agree with this. I'm not sure what my definition of lying is but of course it entirely depends on the purpose of the photo. A photojournalist cropping out an important piece of context is definitely lying. Me cropping out another tourist of a photo I took of a friend is not lying. If I'm editing photos and someone has a temporary blemish or a pimple, I'm more than likely to edit it out. We don't remember faces to the same level of detail as a camera can, so it feels more correct to touch up such blemishes.

ghaff 6y ago
>A photojournalist cropping out an important piece of context is definitely lying. Me cropping out another tourist of a photo I took of a friend is not lying. Rules are even stricter than that for photojournalists. Photographers have lost jobs just for editing out extraneous objects (like a telephone pole "growing out" of someone's head) to make a photo look better. The thinking is likely along the lines of it's a slippery slope once you start editing out things.
- shock-value 6y ago
  Even within journalism there is a world of difference between cropping and outright manipulation.
msla 6y ago
> If I'm editing photos and someone has a temporary blemish or a pimple, I'm more than likely to edit it out. How Un-Cromwellian! https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/warts-and-all.html https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/warts-and-all.html > This phrase 'warts and all' is said to derive from Oliver Cromwell's instructions to the painter Sir Peter Lely, when commissioning a painting. > At the time of the alleged instruction, Cromwell was Lord Protector of England. Lely had been portrait artist to Charles I and, following the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, he was appointed as Charles II's Principal Painter in Ordinary. > Lely's painting style was, as was usual at the time, intended to flatter the sitter. Royalty in particular expected portraits to show them in the best possible light, if not to be outright fanciful. Lely's painting of Charles II shows what was expected of a painting of a head of state in the 17th century. It emphasizes the shapely royal calves - a prized fashion feature at that time. > Cromwell did have a preference for being portrayed as a gentleman of military bearing, but was well-known as being opposed to all forms of personal vanity. This 'puritan Roundhead' versus 'dashing Cavalier' shorthand is often used to denote the differences in style of the two opposing camps in the English Commonwealth and subsequent Restoration. It is entirely plausible that he would have issued a 'warts and all' instruction when being painted and it is unlikely that Lely would have modified his style and produced the 'warts and all' portrait of Cromwell unless someone told him to. Of course, the source of the phrase is, itself, unsourced, and Cromwell likely never said it.

sudosysgen 6y ago

The line is still very blurry. How about a camera using the depth information that is already necessary for AF to automatically crop out of process differently out of focus areas, thus detecting objects? How about a camera automatically focusing on an eye?

mrob 6y ago
If there's no way to prove that semantic processing was used then the rule is unenforceable so you might as well permit it. Cropping the photograph is indistinguishable from using a different camera, and changing the focus is indistinguishable from getting the focus right by accident. Cropping and focus can both be used deceptively, but it's a different type of deception from selective editing of an image, e.g. changing somebody's skin texture.

shard 6y ago

Converting the full spectrum lights in nature into color filtered photons captured on a sensor with an artificial color profile, it's own resolution and pixel arrangement, its own lens specifics that is the camera, then converted to another limited color palette with another artificial color profile and it's own resolution and pixel arrangement that is the display, in order to simulate the colors of nature as detected by yet another set of filtered detectors with it's own color profile, resolution, neuron arrangement, and lens specifics that is the human eye, there is already no such thing as objective truth, every step involves heavy interpretation. Therefore there really is no such thing as honest processing either.