5 ms·

As someone who deals (in the VFX industry) in CG rendering/lighting and compositing/rotopainting footage on a daily basis, I'm really not convinced by these arg

by berkut 4y ago

As someone who deals (in the VFX industry) in CG rendering/lighting and compositing/rotopainting footage on a daily basis, I'm really not convinced by these arguments at all. Certainly the hair "lock" to me looks a lot more like a strap of a bag tied up or something than hair. Also packed snow shapes can change quite significantly in days if there's wind and or significant snowfall: obviously the mountain rock topology won't change, but in most of the cases in the article the lettered points (to me at least) appear to be packed snow mounds more than snow on rocks (although the backdrop one looks more rock-based). Edit: I would say however that I would agree "what is a snow leopard doing that high in the snowline?: there's unlikely to be prey there".

nix23 4y ago
The point for me was that a snow leopard never walks on such exposes snowy terrain, actually no animal does (humans with ropes are a exeption), it's simply too dangerous: >>As to whether snow leopards are likely to be seen on glaciers, Vincent Munier, a snow-leopard specialist, is categoric – the answer is no. But from her site: >I am simply a 24-year-old girl that has a 9-5 job, likes to take/edit photos, and tries to raise awareness of conservation and help our planet. Since I have received death threats for all of this, I have taken down my social accounts. It was maybe just to have a cool photo...but that is unacceptable behavior from the "social" community.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Wow, I get it that people get angry when composite and staged photos win photography competitions. But going as far as sending death threats to a hobbyist photographer whose photos were published by third parties, without proper permission and proper disclaimers it seems, is truly despicable. Because there is nothing wrong with composites (I don't do them, but art is in the eye of the beholder) as long as they are not passed on as non-composites. And just where the line between post-processing, editing and composites is, well, those lines are blurry, aren't they?
  - sho_hn 4y ago
    If she did cheat (i.e. only added the disclaimer later on), she may also not be forthright about the death threats, of course. A reminder of why it's not a good idea to jeopardize one's credibility: It's hard to re-attain.
    - bawolff 4y ago
      > If she did cheat (i.e. only added the disclaimer later on) That is not cheating in a photo competition.
      - nix23 4y ago
        It is kind of cheating if you are a nature-photographer, and she wrote that next to the picture: >>At first I thought it was a rock, but it was exactly what I was looking for. https://kittiyapawlowski.com/snow-leopard-series https://kittiyapawlowski.com/snow-leopard-series That's not ok, but anyway, no big deal. She will just have a hard time to re-establish herself as a serious Nature-Photographer.
        adammarples 4y ago
        She doesn't seem to be trying to, it looks from her website that she's quite a successful digital art / composite creator and that's what she claims to be.
  - martin_a 4y ago
    > But going as far as sending death threats Did that really happen, though? Yes, it's the internet and there are lots of crazy people out there, but on the other hand "I've been threatened" is a quick and easy way for trying to erase/blur things you'd prefere not to be inspected any closer. Maybe she was gambling. If nobody had noticed this fake, this could have been a HUGE thing and a start into another lucrative career, maybe get an award or two. After all there are these once in a lifetime shots and people take them and it's a big thing. And you might look up to those and hope for your personal shot of a lifetime and be tempted to help yourself a bit...
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  > The point for me was that a snow leopard never walks on such exposes snowy terrain, actually no animal does (humans with ropes are a exeption), it's simply too dangerous. Many animals do. Chamois and tahr are two that I've observed doing so, and have been frequently documented doing so. Sure, there's no prey on a snow covered alpine pass for a leopard. And there's no grazing on a snow covered alpine pass for a chamois either. But _there_ is food on the other side of that pass. Hence why it's worth the walk. And why do they use the pass? Same reason humans do, minimise energy expenditure by crossing at the lowest point.
Markoff 4y ago
"To clarify, all my images are edited and processed in Photoshop and Lightroom. Some images are composites, some are not. Some are only lightly retouched. I am NOT a journalist. I never stated my images were not edited anywhere." https://kittiyapawlowski.com/about-kittiya https://kittiyapawlowski.com/about-kittiya Disclaimer she added after she was found to be cheater.
- TylerE 4y ago
  Then ever need photographer in the world is a cheater.m Hell, Ansel Adams is a cheater by that definition - he made “color” photos by tinting black and whites by hand (in the 20s, before developing his signature style)
  - Markoff 4y ago
    Not every photographer removes existing mountain from photo or adds non-existing animals to picture. One thing is slightly touch colors, other thing is completely messing with objects in photo, if you don't see difference between these two approaches it's difficult to discuss it.
    - hhlevnjak2 4y ago
      Most photographers alter colors, lighting, remove signs, wires, lampposts or even people from their images. A lot of them crop, or alter perspective in post. As mentioned here, most documentaries are montages of completely separate footage to tell a story they want to tell. Is any of that cheating as well? Some photography books aimed at beginners even suggest editing in more dynamic skies into photos. It's a matter of style if not anything else. Some photographers will accept only what comes out of camera, others will take more liberties with their work. It's not like any fake claims are made here.
  - rz2k 4y ago
    That reminds me of a series of prints at Ansel Adams' house implying that "Moonrise over Hernandez" was heavily doctored, with each version having elements like very different sized moons. Of course it was all an inside joke for his friends, with the joke being that crafting those sorts of collages was entirely outside of the realm of the types of edits he did when making prints from negatives.
dorkwood 4y ago
I agree. I found this line to be particularly strange: >> Detailed perusal reveals a ‘superfluous’ lock of hair that doesn’t match the rest of the young woman’s hairstyle. Undeniable proof the image has been manipulated. Is it really undeniable proof? I feel like there are possible explanations for what we're seeing.
xbar 4y ago
The artist has since admitted on the artist's own website that they are completely manipulated and that the error was on the part of the consumer in believing that they were anything except completely manipulated.

by berkut 4y ago

nix23 4y ago

The point for me was that a snow leopard never walks on such exposes snowy terrain, actually no animal does (humans with ropes are a exeption), it's simply too dangerous: >>As to whether snow leopards are likely to be seen on glaciers, Vincent Munier, a snow-leopard specialist, is categoric – the answer is no. But from her site: >I am simply a 24-year-old girl that has a 9-5 job, likes to take/edit photos, and tries to raise awareness of conservation and help our planet. Since I have received death threats for all of this, I have taken down my social accounts. It was maybe just to have a cool photo...but that is unacceptable behavior from the "social" community.

hef19898 4y ago
Wow, I get it that people get angry when composite and staged photos win photography competitions. But going as far as sending death threats to a hobbyist photographer whose photos were published by third parties, without proper permission and proper disclaimers it seems, is truly despicable. Because there is nothing wrong with composites (I don't do them, but art is in the eye of the beholder) as long as they are not passed on as non-composites. And just where the line between post-processing, editing and composites is, well, those lines are blurry, aren't they?
- sho_hn 4y ago
  If she did cheat (i.e. only added the disclaimer later on), she may also not be forthright about the death threats, of course. A reminder of why it's not a good idea to jeopardize one's credibility: It's hard to re-attain.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    > If she did cheat (i.e. only added the disclaimer later on) That is not cheating in a photo competition.
    - nix23 4y ago
      It is kind of cheating if you are a nature-photographer, and she wrote that next to the picture: >>At first I thought it was a rock, but it was exactly what I was looking for. https://kittiyapawlowski.com/snow-leopard-series https://kittiyapawlowski.com/snow-leopard-series That's not ok, but anyway, no big deal. She will just have a hard time to re-establish herself as a serious Nature-Photographer.
      - adammarples 4y ago
        She doesn't seem to be trying to, it looks from her website that she's quite a successful digital art / composite creator and that's what she claims to be.
- martin_a 4y ago
  > But going as far as sending death threats Did that really happen, though? Yes, it's the internet and there are lots of crazy people out there, but on the other hand "I've been threatened" is a quick and easy way for trying to erase/blur things you'd prefere not to be inspected any closer. Maybe she was gambling. If nobody had noticed this fake, this could have been a HUGE thing and a start into another lucrative career, maybe get an award or two. After all there are these once in a lifetime shots and people take them and it's a big thing. And you might look up to those and hope for your personal shot of a lifetime and be tempted to help yourself a bit...
EdwardDiego 4y ago
> The point for me was that a snow leopard never walks on such exposes snowy terrain, actually no animal does (humans with ropes are a exeption), it's simply too dangerous. Many animals do. Chamois and tahr are two that I've observed doing so, and have been frequently documented doing so. Sure, there's no prey on a snow covered alpine pass for a leopard. And there's no grazing on a snow covered alpine pass for a chamois either. But _there_ is food on the other side of that pass. Hence why it's worth the walk. And why do they use the pass? Same reason humans do, minimise energy expenditure by crossing at the lowest point.

Markoff 4y ago

"To clarify, all my images are edited and processed in Photoshop and Lightroom. Some images are composites, some are not. Some are only lightly retouched. I am NOT a journalist. I never stated my images were not edited anywhere." https://kittiyapawlowski.com/about-kittiya https://kittiyapawlowski.com/about-kittiya Disclaimer she added after she was found to be cheater.

TylerE 4y ago
Then ever need photographer in the world is a cheater.m Hell, Ansel Adams is a cheater by that definition - he made “color” photos by tinting black and whites by hand (in the 20s, before developing his signature style)
- Markoff 4y ago
  Not every photographer removes existing mountain from photo or adds non-existing animals to picture. One thing is slightly touch colors, other thing is completely messing with objects in photo, if you don't see difference between these two approaches it's difficult to discuss it.
  - hhlevnjak2 4y ago
    Most photographers alter colors, lighting, remove signs, wires, lampposts or even people from their images. A lot of them crop, or alter perspective in post. As mentioned here, most documentaries are montages of completely separate footage to tell a story they want to tell. Is any of that cheating as well? Some photography books aimed at beginners even suggest editing in more dynamic skies into photos. It's a matter of style if not anything else. Some photographers will accept only what comes out of camera, others will take more liberties with their work. It's not like any fake claims are made here.
- rz2k 4y ago
  That reminds me of a series of prints at Ansel Adams' house implying that "Moonrise over Hernandez" was heavily doctored, with each version having elements like very different sized moons. Of course it was all an inside joke for his friends, with the joke being that crafting those sorts of collages was entirely outside of the realm of the types of edits he did when making prints from negatives.

dorkwood 4y ago

I agree. I found this line to be particularly strange: >> Detailed perusal reveals a ‘superfluous’ lock of hair that doesn’t match the rest of the young woman’s hairstyle. Undeniable proof the image has been manipulated. Is it really undeniable proof? I feel like there are possible explanations for what we're seeing.

xbar 4y ago

The artist has since admitted on the artist's own website that they are completely manipulated and that the error was on the part of the consumer in believing that they were anything except completely manipulated.