5 ms·

The ironing is delicious. Very, very little photography that you will ever see is untouched - from mild tweaking of curves to complete recomposition. This is w

The ironing is delicious. Very, very little photography that you will ever see is untouched - from mild tweaking of curves to complete recomposition. This is what photoshop is for. Ansel Adams, for example, used to dodge and burn extensively when printing, and is viewed as a master of the art - he was mostly really good at upping the drama by amplifying or outright inventing chiaroscuro. Where does the line lie? Well, it depends on who your friends are.

altacc 4y ago
> Where does the line lie? Putting aside the discussion about these particular photographs... There are clear lines, especially for certain types of photography. For things like reportage, documentary and true nature photography, the simplest rule is to represent reality, without addition, removal or significant alteration. In these circles even significantly cropping a photo can be seen as manipulative. Dodging and burning is mostly seen as processing, not material change to the photograph. But importantly the rule is to not lie about the reality the photo depicts. Nature photography is as much about the effort or the hunt as it is the photo, so honest is key. Other photos have been removed from competitions and stripped of prizes due to misrepresentation, from editing to using tame animals. You can edit the photo's appearance through post processing of exposure, sharpness, etc... it is the subject that is important. Lying about the subject invalidates the photo.
- aoeusnth1 4y ago
  In what way could cropping be manipulative? You could have taken the exact same framing with a different zoom setting on your lens.
  - altacc 4y ago
    Yes, both can have the same effect of selecting the editorial content of the photograph. With both methods (plus the selection of what photos from an event to publish) a photographer or their editor can choose what to convey. For example, if you have a photo of a group of people you can selectively crop, or frame in teh viewfinder, only the people that will convey an gripping editorial message, e.g remove or only include a certain demographic or action. If there are 1000 protesters standing around and 5 throwing stuff, the 5 will be photographed and reported as representative of the entire protest.
kataklasm 4y ago
You are comparing Ansel Adam's Dodge and Burn (which certainly alters the image quite a bit, no question) with pasting different mountain ranges and a snow leopard together, making essentially a digital composite? That's ridiculous! One is increasing and decreasing light and shadow in an image, only working with what was captured physically on that sheet of film. The other is copy and pasting from different photographs, making it seem like it was one photo. Totally different ball games in my eyes.
- hef19898 4y ago
  The whole editing stuff into photo montages is ok, if you don't claim otherwise. Which, according to the photographer, she never claimed. Quite the opposite, she seems to be pretty upfront about how she takes and edits pictures.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - qnpnp 4y ago
    She's anything but upfront. Until the disclaimer was added there was no way to tell these photos were fake. On the contrary, there was a whole story-telling about how she made this difficult trip and suddenly saw what she was looking for in a magical moment, which supports the idea that this was genuine animal photography. It is therefore no surprise that people assumed these photos were real and now feel deceived. Even now that she added this disclaimer, she is antyhing but clear as to what is actually real or not. Are we speaking of editing and composite as in "I took a great photo and just added a few rocks here and removed a cloud there to make it cooler" or in "I built this whole landscape and then added a snow leopard on top of it"? She claims she genuinely photographied the snow leopard, but this is very unlikely and the deception already identified makes it difficult to believe her. Edit: reading more carefully she claims she saw "what she was looking for" which you would obviously interpret as a snow leopard, but is vague enough to offer her yet again another opportunity to say she "never said that".
    - 4y ago
constantcrying 4y ago
>Where does the line lie? Is it a photograph of a snow leopard with some alterations in post processing or is it a photograph of a mountain range with a snow leopard inserted after. That is the line. All photos are edited, the act of saving a pattern of light onto a film or digital sensor itself is a form of editing. The choice of camera, lens and parameters is a form of editing by itself.
suzzer99 4y ago
Semi-pro landscape photographer here. It's true there are gray areas. But moving mountains and adding animals where animals could never be is not one of them.

altacc 4y ago

> Where does the line lie? Putting aside the discussion about these particular photographs... There are clear lines, especially for certain types of photography. For things like reportage, documentary and true nature photography, the simplest rule is to represent reality, without addition, removal or significant alteration. In these circles even significantly cropping a photo can be seen as manipulative. Dodging and burning is mostly seen as processing, not material change to the photograph. But importantly the rule is to not lie about the reality the photo depicts. Nature photography is as much about the effort or the hunt as it is the photo, so honest is key. Other photos have been removed from competitions and stripped of prizes due to misrepresentation, from editing to using tame animals. You can edit the photo's appearance through post processing of exposure, sharpness, etc... it is the subject that is important. Lying about the subject invalidates the photo.

aoeusnth1 4y ago
In what way could cropping be manipulative? You could have taken the exact same framing with a different zoom setting on your lens.
- altacc 4y ago
  Yes, both can have the same effect of selecting the editorial content of the photograph. With both methods (plus the selection of what photos from an event to publish) a photographer or their editor can choose what to convey. For example, if you have a photo of a group of people you can selectively crop, or frame in teh viewfinder, only the people that will convey an gripping editorial message, e.g remove or only include a certain demographic or action. If there are 1000 protesters standing around and 5 throwing stuff, the 5 will be photographed and reported as representative of the entire protest.

kataklasm 4y ago

You are comparing Ansel Adam's Dodge and Burn (which certainly alters the image quite a bit, no question) with pasting different mountain ranges and a snow leopard together, making essentially a digital composite? That's ridiculous! One is increasing and decreasing light and shadow in an image, only working with what was captured physically on that sheet of film. The other is copy and pasting from different photographs, making it seem like it was one photo. Totally different ball games in my eyes.

hef19898 4y ago
The whole editing stuff into photo montages is ok, if you don't claim otherwise. Which, according to the photographer, she never claimed. Quite the opposite, she seems to be pretty upfront about how she takes and edits pictures.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- qnpnp 4y ago
  She's anything but upfront. Until the disclaimer was added there was no way to tell these photos were fake. On the contrary, there was a whole story-telling about how she made this difficult trip and suddenly saw what she was looking for in a magical moment, which supports the idea that this was genuine animal photography. It is therefore no surprise that people assumed these photos were real and now feel deceived. Even now that she added this disclaimer, she is antyhing but clear as to what is actually real or not. Are we speaking of editing and composite as in "I took a great photo and just added a few rocks here and removed a cloud there to make it cooler" or in "I built this whole landscape and then added a snow leopard on top of it"? She claims she genuinely photographied the snow leopard, but this is very unlikely and the deception already identified makes it difficult to believe her. Edit: reading more carefully she claims she saw "what she was looking for" which you would obviously interpret as a snow leopard, but is vague enough to offer her yet again another opportunity to say she "never said that".
  - 4y ago

constantcrying 4y ago

>Where does the line lie? Is it a photograph of a snow leopard with some alterations in post processing or is it a photograph of a mountain range with a snow leopard inserted after. That is the line. All photos are edited, the act of saving a pattern of light onto a film or digital sensor itself is a form of editing. The choice of camera, lens and parameters is a form of editing by itself.

suzzer99 4y ago

Semi-pro landscape photographer here. It's true there are gray areas. But moving mountains and adding animals where animals could never be is not one of them.