Photos: Where does a "fake" picture start?

beholder3 · 03-10-2012, 11:28 AM

[deleted]

Last edited by beholder3; 08-11-2013 at 07:38 AM. Reason: [deleted]

RioRico · 03-10-2012, 03:46 PM

I skipped the video because of my current viewing constraints (I'm on very limited bandwidth at the moment). But I know a little about imaging veracity. A couple guidelines:

* We we think we see, what we want to see, what the camera+lens see, and what's really there (if anything), aren't the same. That's the nature of human vs mechanical-optical vision systems.

* All photography by humans is selectively censored. We chose the framing of a picture to include elements we want, and to exclude elements we don't want. Only exception: unedited 360-degree imaging. Yawn...

* An image is 'real' (or as real as it's gonna be) if we haven't consciously inserted or removed elements that change the story it tells. Cropping-out significant details is just as dishonest as cloning-in other details.

A fixed traffic.cam that records licence plates and driver headshots of illegally-moving vehicles can be considered 'documentary' (but those pix probably aren't interesting except to traffic courts). Any images of general interest must almost necessarily be selective and interpretive.

A photo might honestly record the visible spectra bouncing off whatever is in front of the lens, but that might exclude enough context to be misleading. Case in point: The picture of an Oakland cop petting a kitten at an OCCUPY OAKLAND site that police had recently attacked. Or a photo of a person in an enclosure, without thermal indications that the enclosure is icy cold or red-hot. Do the simple pictures tell an honest story of events there? I think not. And a camera can honestly record a scene that is dishonestly staged. The image is real; the story is false.

Much photography is (supposedly) documentary and much isn't. My late bro-in-law was a painter and the chief of police on a not-insignificant city. His rule: THERE IS NO CHEATING IN ART. If you claim an image is what it isn't, that's cheating. If you make no such claim, no problem. So I'll say: THERE ARE NO FAKE PHOTOS, JUST FAKE CAPTIONS.

beholder3 · 03-10-2012, 03:57 PM

[deleted]

Na Horuk · 03-10-2012, 04:09 PM

Keep in mind, photography is not a document, it is always an imperfect and biased capture. It is just that the visual media is trying to propagate the ideology of photography being an objective, scientific record of the true reality. That gives people a sense of security and they trust the media more.
But what is true? What the eyes would have seen? Whose eyes? All photos are as fake as they are real, but not all are made with the intent to deceive. Though it can be dangerous when they deceive accidentally, it is even more dangerous when they deceive intentionally - as it is shown in that link.

Another example is the photo/video of the Chinese man that stepped in front of the column of tanks, and wouldn't let them pass. In the west it is shown as how powerful a single person's bravery is. But the thing is, in China the same photo now is used to show how merciful and humane their army is, because they didn't kill the man outright. Another image that changed meaning throughout time is an image of an execution in Vietnam. It was shown at first as the victory of USA over the enemy, but the people then started seeing it as a representation of brutality and senselessness of war.

**monochrome** · 03-10-2012, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Another example is the photo/video of the Chinese man that stepped in front of the column of tanks, and wouldn't let them pass. In the west it is shown as how powerful a single person's bravery is. But the thing is, in China the same photo now is used to show how merciful and humane their army is, because they didn't kill the man outright. Another image that changed meaning throughout time is an image of an execution in Vietnam. It was shown at first as the victory of USA over the enemy, but the people then started seeing it as a representation of brutality and senselessness of war.

IOW, change the caption and you change the context.

03-10-2012, 11:28 AM	#1
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	Photos: Where does a "fake" picture start? [deleted] Last edited by beholder3; 08-11-2013 at 07:38 AM. Reason: [deleted]

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Post your "Park Bench" "or "Picnic Table" images	tessfully	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	2201	2 Days Ago 03:25 PM
Don't say Pentax "Q" in French ... "Q" = "cul" = "A--"	Jean Poitiers	Pentax Q	52	11-10-2013 06:25 AM
How do the K5 photos compare to Full Frame camera photos as far as the "look" goes?	crossover37	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	166	05-16-2011 07:24 PM
Wierd "pentax lens" (probably fake)	summonbaka	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	01-01-2010 07:59 AM
At attempt at fake HDR and emulating "The Dave Hill Effect"	lastdodobird	Post Your Photos!	2	03-05-2008 06:51 PM

03-10-2012, 03:46 PM	#2
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I skipped the video because of my current viewing constraints (I'm on very limited bandwidth at the moment). But I know a little about imaging veracity. A couple guidelines: * We we think we see, what we want to see, what the camera+lens see, and what's really there (if anything), aren't the same. That's the nature of human vs mechanical-optical vision systems. * All photography by humans is selectively censored. We chose the framing of a picture to include elements we want, and to exclude elements we don't want. Only exception: unedited 360-degree imaging. Yawn... * An image is 'real' (or as real as it's gonna be) if we haven't consciously inserted or removed elements that change the story it tells. Cropping-out significant details is just as dishonest as cloning-in other details. A fixed traffic.cam that records licence plates and driver headshots of illegally-moving vehicles can be considered 'documentary' (but those pix probably aren't interesting except to traffic courts). Any images of general interest must almost necessarily be selective and interpretive. A photo might honestly record the visible spectra bouncing off whatever is in front of the lens, but that might exclude enough context to be misleading. Case in point: The picture of an Oakland cop petting a kitten at an OCCUPY OAKLAND site that police had recently attacked. Or a photo of a person in an enclosure, without thermal indications that the enclosure is icy cold or red-hot. Do the simple pictures tell an honest story of events there? I think not. And a camera can honestly record a scene that is dishonestly staged. The image is real; the story is false. Much photography is (supposedly) documentary and much isn't. My late bro-in-law was a painter and the chief of police on a not-insignificant city. His rule: THERE IS NO CHEATING IN ART. If you claim an image is what it isn't, that's cheating. If you make no such claim, no problem. So I'll say: THERE ARE NO FAKE PHOTOS, JUST FAKE CAPTIONS.

03-10-2012, 03:57 PM	#3
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112 Original Poster	[deleted] Last edited by beholder3; 08-11-2013 at 07:38 AM. Reason: [deleted]

03-10-2012, 04:09 PM	#4
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Keep in mind, photography is not a document, it is always an imperfect and biased capture. It is just that the visual media is trying to propagate the ideology of photography being an objective, scientific record of the true reality. That gives people a sense of security and they trust the media more. But what is true? What the eyes would have seen? Whose eyes? All photos are as fake as they are real, but not all are made with the intent to deceive. Though it can be dangerous when they deceive accidentally, it is even more dangerous when they deceive intentionally - as it is shown in that link. Another example is the photo/video of the Chinese man that stepped in front of the column of tanks, and wouldn't let them pass. In the west it is shown as how powerful a single person's bravery is. But the thing is, in China the same photo now is used to show how merciful and humane their army is, because they didn't kill the man outright. Another image that changed meaning throughout time is an image of an execution in Vietnam. It was shown at first as the victory of USA over the enemy, but the people then started seeing it as a representation of brutality and senselessness of war.

03-10-2012, 06:02 PM	#5
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Na Horuk Another example is the photo/video of the Chinese man that stepped in front of the column of tanks, and wouldn't let them pass. In the west it is shown as how powerful a single person's bravery is. But the thing is, in China the same photo now is used to show how merciful and humane their army is, because they didn't kill the man outright. Another image that changed meaning throughout time is an image of an execution in Vietnam. It was shown at first as the victory of USA over the enemy, but the people then started seeing it as a representation of brutality and senselessness of war. IOW, change the caption and you change the context.