4 ms·

Good point on the analysis not linking any original sources. However, and importantly, she only added the disclaimer after having suffered from the backlash:

Good point on the analysis not linking any original sources. However, and importantly, she only added the disclaimer after having suffered from the backlash: Check for yourself: No statement about 'composites' on this version from 4 days ago: https://web.archive.org/web/20221127010418/https://kittiyapawlowski.com/about-kittiya https://web.archive.org/web/20221127010418/https://kittiyapa... I am not convinced by her explanation either. It was never clear they were composites. Again, going to her original publication: https://kittiyapawlowski.com/snow-leopard-series https://kittiyapawlowski.com/snow-leopard-series I find the whole story misleading at best: having the 'composite' (fake) images next to captions explaining that this is a snow leopard at 17,014 ft (5185 meters) is dishonest. She thought she could get away with it but backtracked a few days later after it got out of hands.

Narretz 4y ago
The about page from 27th November does have a notice that some images are composites: https://web.archive.org/web/20221127010417/https://kittiyapawlowski.com/contact https://web.archive.org/web/20221127010417/https://kittiyapa...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- sharpascents 4y ago
  I stand corrected. We don't know when this first disclaimer was orignially published / added though. And I would let people make their own decision whether they think her publication is misleading or not: https://kittiyapawlowski.com/snow-leopard-series https://kittiyapawlowski.com/snow-leopard-series edit: her disclaimer also reads like it was more reactive rather than precautionary: "I never stated my images were not edited anywhere".
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    She isn't a journalist, it is a side project. As she points out, misleading photos are common in all kinds of publications without a disclaimer. Does she deserve death threats? It is responsible to post a "debunking" article without actually reaching out to the artist to ask? I consider the "journalists" who wrote this article to be far more lacking in ethics than the artist who posted these photos.
  - _aavaa_ 4y ago
    Actually, we can know. There's a capture of the page from the day before (the 26th): https://web.archive.org/web/20221126060502/https://kittiyapawlowski.com/about-kittiya https://web.archive.org/web/20221126060502/https://kittiyapa... It does not contain that disclaimer. So, unless it was moved from another part of the website, there was no disclaimer before the article was published.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

Narretz 4y ago

The about page from 27th November does have a notice that some images are composites: https://web.archive.org/web/20221127010417/https://kittiyapawlowski.com/contact https://web.archive.org/web/20221127010417/https://kittiyapa...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sharpascents 4y ago
I stand corrected. We don't know when this first disclaimer was orignially published / added though. And I would let people make their own decision whether they think her publication is misleading or not: https://kittiyapawlowski.com/snow-leopard-series https://kittiyapawlowski.com/snow-leopard-series edit: her disclaimer also reads like it was more reactive rather than precautionary: "I never stated my images were not edited anywhere".
- shkkmo 4y ago
  She isn't a journalist, it is a side project. As she points out, misleading photos are common in all kinds of publications without a disclaimer. Does she deserve death threats? It is responsible to post a "debunking" article without actually reaching out to the artist to ask? I consider the "journalists" who wrote this article to be far more lacking in ethics than the artist who posted these photos.
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  Actually, we can know. There's a capture of the page from the day before (the 26th): https://web.archive.org/web/20221126060502/https://kittiyapawlowski.com/about-kittiya https://web.archive.org/web/20221126060502/https://kittiyapa... It does not contain that disclaimer. So, unless it was moved from another part of the website, there was no disclaimer before the article was published.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]