10 ms·

"all of the images are taken by me" is a lie. This images were not taken, they are at most collages of images taken by them. They are also lying by omission an

"all of the images are taken by me" is a lie. This images were not taken, they are at most collages of images taken by them. They are also lying by omission and selective description. In https://kittiyapawlowski.com/snow-leopard-series https://kittiyapawlowski.com/snow-leopard-series there is no mention whatsoever that images are fake collages. On https://kittiyapawlowski.com/news-publications/published-in-the-times-of-london https://kittiyapawlowski.com/news-publications/published-in-... and https://kittiyapawlowski.com/ https://kittiyapawlowski.com/ there is - no mention that these image files are not photographs - "Kittiya Pawlowski is a photographer and artist that uses visual storytelling" may be technically true but is lying by omission - there is no clear description of images as misleading collages

RektBoy 4y ago
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  - I dislike being lied to in general - this images are highly misleading, real snow leopards do NOT behave like that - that makes me (and other) justifiably more suspicious about other claims related to snow leopards, nature protection and people involved After all, if they are happy to lie in this way - maybe they are also happy to defraud money that got donated? Maybe snow leopards are extinct or impossible to protect anyway? > Also if all this brings more awareness to safe these animals? win-win. This also brings more awareness and proof that people lie to you and you should ignore their claims. That is one of reasons for denialism of smog as real problem, denialism of global warming and so on. Sacrificing trust and credibility to get less than 800$ (maybe they lied also about this?) is not a good trade. Also that is a perfect case to show "see, they are probably lying again about this animals - lets build that motorway/factory/resort". This is a bad strategy even if we do not care about ethics, lying and so on. PS I am not a photographer.
  - RektBoy 4y ago
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    I don't see any lieing by the artist and certainly not to you. The images were shared with a total of 3000 people by the artist, I doubt you were one of them. If anyone engaged in deception here, it is the publications and "journalists" that reused the images without permission and without doing any basic legwork.
Atsuii 4y ago
She never claims to be a 1) Photojournalist or 2) Reporter. She clearly articulates herself as an artist and appears to enter many fine art photography competitions, never attempting to pass her work as unmanipulated to her peers. Photo manipulation and composites is extremely common in fine art photography (as well as many other photography fields, ie. landscape), and the act is never questioned when the work is hanging in a gallery. The narrative is part of the art. An artist does not have to put a disclaimer on their own website saying their work is not manipulated, they can also tell whatever STORY they want next to it. If anything how convincing her narrative and photos are speaks volumes to her ability as an artist. Do not claim that collages or manipulations are not 'photographs' or that she didn't 'taken them'. She took every photo used, that act alone makes her a photographer. What constitutes a photograph can not be distilled to 'this photograph was manipulated so it is not a photograph'. Take some of this anger and direct it at publications that stole her photos and published them as something they were not with no input from the artist. It is the medias job to research what they publish, it is not an artist's job to to dictate how someone interprets their art.
- dEnigma 4y ago
  > She never claims to be a 1) Photojournalist or 2) Reporter. She might never explicitly claim that, but the page is clearly written in photojournalist style. A photo of snow leopard tracks with coordinates, talking about and documenting the process of her search and how she finally managed to snap a photo of the leopard. Reading that page I certainly would think the images are unaltered (i.e. not stitched together). That is not to say that the publications that took the photos were in the right. But the false impression is not entirely on them.
  - tantalor 4y ago
    > I certainly would think the images are unaltered You should consider developing your critical thinking skills.
    - mynameisvlad 4y ago
      The parent explained exactly how their critical thinking skills led them to believe the images are unaltered. Instead of belittling them, do you have examples of things which they could have picked up to imply that the images were altered?
stonemetal12 4y ago
Do you also get mad that Salvador Dalí paintings don't carry a disclaimer that they are not real?
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  I would be irritated if someone would present Salvador Dalí paintings as depiction of real situation, with convincing backstory claiming that.
cat_plus_plus 4y ago
Your phone likely takes a collage of 3 photos, otherwise known as HDR, every time you tap the shutter and then does various AI thingies to make a selfie look pretty. And if you look closely, no that's not how things look to human eye. Wide angle group photo? A physically impossible illusion distorted to look passably normal. How much are you going to disclaim on Facebook?
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  Border is not 100% clear but making collage out of multiple photo and pasting leopard that would never visit such location is definitely beyond what needs disclaiming
  - cat_plus_plus 4y ago
    Copy and paste zoo photo on top of the mountain and claim you saw that in the wild? Sure, that would be a lie. But individual animals are also not unheard of to do unusual things and just how well are Snow Leopards researched to say they never ever come near glaciers? Maybe they do once in a while for their own reasons.
    - matkoniecz 4y ago
      well, teleporting mountain ranges are even less likely and this would be also needed to create images that they attempted to pass as real photographs
- gus_massa 4y ago
  In Argentina, if a publicity that has photoshoped human, then it must have a text explaining that. The idea was to fight against unrealistic body standards. The actual result is that every publicity has that text, and people just ignore it.
  - cat_plus_plus 4y ago
    The problem is that non-photoshopped photos do not represent reality either. Anything with different focal distance from human eye is by definition distorted. Levels of dark and light have to be squeezed into what computer/phone screen can show, often resulting in faces that would be fully black or white if corrective steps are not taken. Depth perception is lost, making people look much fatter than they are. A lot of edits are about approximating perceived reality rather than deception.

RektBoy 4y ago

matkoniecz 4y ago
- I dislike being lied to in general - this images are highly misleading, real snow leopards do NOT behave like that - that makes me (and other) justifiably more suspicious about other claims related to snow leopards, nature protection and people involved After all, if they are happy to lie in this way - maybe they are also happy to defraud money that got donated? Maybe snow leopards are extinct or impossible to protect anyway? > Also if all this brings more awareness to safe these animals? win-win. This also brings more awareness and proof that people lie to you and you should ignore their claims. That is one of reasons for denialism of smog as real problem, denialism of global warming and so on. Sacrificing trust and credibility to get less than 800$ (maybe they lied also about this?) is not a good trade. Also that is a perfect case to show "see, they are probably lying again about this animals - lets build that motorway/factory/resort". This is a bad strategy even if we do not care about ethics, lying and so on. PS I am not a photographer.
- RektBoy 4y ago
- shkkmo 4y ago
  I don't see any lieing by the artist and certainly not to you. The images were shared with a total of 3000 people by the artist, I doubt you were one of them. If anyone engaged in deception here, it is the publications and "journalists" that reused the images without permission and without doing any basic legwork.

Atsuii 4y ago

She never claims to be a 1) Photojournalist or 2) Reporter. She clearly articulates herself as an artist and appears to enter many fine art photography competitions, never attempting to pass her work as unmanipulated to her peers. Photo manipulation and composites is extremely common in fine art photography (as well as many other photography fields, ie. landscape), and the act is never questioned when the work is hanging in a gallery. The narrative is part of the art. An artist does not have to put a disclaimer on their own website saying their work is not manipulated, they can also tell whatever STORY they want next to it. If anything how convincing her narrative and photos are speaks volumes to her ability as an artist. Do not claim that collages or manipulations are not 'photographs' or that she didn't 'taken them'. She took every photo used, that act alone makes her a photographer. What constitutes a photograph can not be distilled to 'this photograph was manipulated so it is not a photograph'. Take some of this anger and direct it at publications that stole her photos and published them as something they were not with no input from the artist. It is the medias job to research what they publish, it is not an artist's job to to dictate how someone interprets their art.

dEnigma 4y ago
> She never claims to be a 1) Photojournalist or 2) Reporter. She might never explicitly claim that, but the page is clearly written in photojournalist style. A photo of snow leopard tracks with coordinates, talking about and documenting the process of her search and how she finally managed to snap a photo of the leopard. Reading that page I certainly would think the images are unaltered (i.e. not stitched together). That is not to say that the publications that took the photos were in the right. But the false impression is not entirely on them.
- tantalor 4y ago
  > I certainly would think the images are unaltered You should consider developing your critical thinking skills.
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    The parent explained exactly how their critical thinking skills led them to believe the images are unaltered. Instead of belittling them, do you have examples of things which they could have picked up to imply that the images were altered?

stonemetal12 4y ago

Do you also get mad that Salvador Dalí paintings don't carry a disclaimer that they are not real?

matkoniecz 4y ago
I would be irritated if someone would present Salvador Dalí paintings as depiction of real situation, with convincing backstory claiming that.

cat_plus_plus 4y ago

Your phone likely takes a collage of 3 photos, otherwise known as HDR, every time you tap the shutter and then does various AI thingies to make a selfie look pretty. And if you look closely, no that's not how things look to human eye. Wide angle group photo? A physically impossible illusion distorted to look passably normal. How much are you going to disclaim on Facebook?

matkoniecz 4y ago
Border is not 100% clear but making collage out of multiple photo and pasting leopard that would never visit such location is definitely beyond what needs disclaiming
- cat_plus_plus 4y ago
  Copy and paste zoo photo on top of the mountain and claim you saw that in the wild? Sure, that would be a lie. But individual animals are also not unheard of to do unusual things and just how well are Snow Leopards researched to say they never ever come near glaciers? Maybe they do once in a while for their own reasons.
  - matkoniecz 4y ago
    well, teleporting mountain ranges are even less likely and this would be also needed to create images that they attempted to pass as real photographs
gus_massa 4y ago
In Argentina, if a publicity that has photoshoped human, then it must have a text explaining that. The idea was to fight against unrealistic body standards. The actual result is that every publicity has that text, and people just ignore it.
- cat_plus_plus 4y ago
  The problem is that non-photoshopped photos do not represent reality either. Anything with different focal distance from human eye is by definition distorted. Levels of dark and light have to be squeezed into what computer/phone screen can show, often resulting in faces that would be fully black or white if corrective steps are not taken. Depth perception is lost, making people look much fatter than they are. A lot of edits are about approximating perceived reality rather than deception.