Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-14-2016, 05:25 PM - 1 Like   #211
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote

Is it still a "photograph"? I don't know, but I personally wouldn't put it anywhere without mentioning that it was a composite.
I'd put it most places without bothering to say it's a composite - it's a dramatic and unlikely pic.

Today's audiences are expecting manipulation - check out Beautifuldestinations.com with the landscapes where orange, red and blue are suddenly in them, composited figures sitting on a ledge, etc. Or any posed picture of a celebrity that's ever been cleared by their PR agent.

I wouldn't be posting it to say, the 300mm lens club of this forum or to a nature magazine - the expectations are different.

Then again, where would wildlife photography be if not for animals that are tamed, baited or been desensitized to the photographer's presence over days, or judicious video editing by the documentary production staff?

Even in your chosen world of macro, there are plenty of posed insects that are actually dead or flowers with a green card background or held in place by a wire or whatever.

Just assume any of my stuff may have been post processed beyond recognition. See my avatar? I'm actually a five-foot four albino woman, but that Instagram filter was a treat!

12-15-2016, 09:07 AM - 2 Likes   #212
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: South West UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,493
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
or judicious video editing by the documentary production staff
Reminds me of the BBC Wildlife documentary of the polar bear hibernating and giving birth, then emerging onto the ice. Turned out it was a composite of wild shots (on the ice) and tame shots (in the den)...there was some outrage, but less so when the crew pointed out that to break into a polar bear's nursery to film her giving birth is not only unethical, but also very, very brave. Personally, the whole thing told a story that, for me, was no less true for it being a composite.
12-15-2016, 09:19 AM - 2 Likes   #213
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
Th drawbacks to photoshop is, you need more than one good image to use in your composite, so at least double the work, probably more. . And it's very time consuming. The advantage to reality is, you come into situations where, you couldn't think of this composition. With composites you're limited to what your mind can imagine. Nature often blows that out of the water. My objections to photoshopping images and making composites is completely practical. It's a skill on it's own, a skill that the average photographer may or may not have, and even if they have it, they might not be interested in it. Just doing what I do, using definition without creating halos, polarizing a sky or dodging shadows without creating outlines. Post processing is plenty time consuming enough, for most of us, just trying to get the image to look like what we saw. Forget about trying to get it to look like something we didn't see.

Last edited by normhead; 12-18-2016 at 08:21 AM.
12-15-2016, 11:00 AM - 3 Likes   #214
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
QuoteOriginally posted by victormeldrew Quote
Reminds me of the BBC Wildlife documentary of the polar bear hibernating and giving birth, then emerging onto the ice. Turned out it was a composite of wild shots (on the ice) and tame shots (in the den)...there was some outrage, but less so when the crew pointed out that to break into a polar bear's nursery to film her giving birth is not only unethical, but also very, very brave. Personally, the whole thing told a story that, for me, was no less true for it being a composite.
Although it may well be unethical and foolhardy to attempt filming actual polar bears in their actual habitat, there's the serious issue that recreated/composited scenes may say more about humans than about the animals and nature. If the science of polar bear behavior is incomplete (which it must be given that no one has filmed polar bears giving birth in the wild), then any reconstruction of said behavior might be wrong. Even that composite of the birds might be deeply wrong, If that species is extremely territorial, then such flocking would be highly abnormal and birds of that species would either avoid such numbers or act far differently in the presence of so many members of their species (P.S. I do love that image of the birds, but it may well be a fantasy image).

Any image that purports to represent natural behavior probably needs to be handled with standards even higher than those used in journalism. At least in the case of journalism, a human photographer is likely to know what parts of the scene are important to the human subjects of the image. In the case of nature photography, the photographer may have no clue as to what parts of the scene are the most important parts to that animal or plant. Even those stray ugly twigs could a very important natural element that should not be removed -- many birds do prefer dense thickets for their natural protection against predators such that an exposed perch is highly unnatural.

That's not to say that composite shots of nature are wrong in a broader photographic sense, only that they are no longer images of the natural world but are artificial images of an artificial world like a studio image. That is, they no longer belong on the science or natural history side of the museum but might belong on the art side maybe next to Hieronymus Bosch.

12-15-2016, 12:59 PM - 1 Like   #215
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
The Polar Bear controversy: Frozen Planet: BBC denies misleading fans - BBC News I think it was something of a lie of omission, or at least not being as transparent as some viewers would have preferred.

Below is another type of composite image, this one of fireflies. I know many people get the impression that if they were standing right next to me when I made this, their eyes would have seen something similar, and they express amazement at not having seen so many fireflies since they were a kid 30 years ago. Fireflies are (at least anecdotally) on a heavy decline in my area. To avoid being misleading, I always point out that this image represents 25 minutes worth of firefly activity, and go on to describe what my eyes were actually seeing (it was still a pretty active field!).

One of the things I celebrate about photography is its ability to show us things our eyes can't - images like this are particularly fun for me. The composite aspect aside, does the fact that it is far from what our eyes could process disqualify it from falling under 'wildlife photography'?

If someone is interested I will also point out that it is a stack of 13 images, but I don't bother if they don't seem like they'd care. This kind of stack is standard in night time photography (star trails), so I figure it's somewhat expected and accepted (I even posted it to the 300mm club without mentioning this). I'm sure some people might view this as a "photographic lie" since it wasn't done in camera, and couldn't be done with the multi-exposure blend modes in my camera (k5iis). However, it could be with the next generation (k3), so the in-camera benchmark is a constantly moving one.

I do consider it more 'photographically pure' than my bird example as I fired every frame into the program and it layered them for me. There was no selecting pieces of one frame or another like I did with the birds, I let chaos reign and every bit I captured got a say. I don't think there's an easy answer on what level of disclosure you opt for. A take away from this thread is no matter what you do, someone is bound to be offended.





---------- Post added 12-15-16 at 03:25 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Today's audiences are expecting manipulation - check out Beautifuldestinations.com with the landscapes where orange, red and blue are suddenly in them, composited figures sitting on a ledge, etc. Or any posed picture of a celebrity that's ever been cleared by their PR agent.
Aaargh..auto-playing music. Literally "aaaaargh" - lap cats do not react well to auto playing music. In addition to getting your point, I also received several points in my leg for emphasis.

QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Even in your chosen world of macro, there are plenty of posed insects that are actually dead or flowers with a green card background or held in place by a wire or whatever.
Absolutely, many of these 'tricks' are well known among photographers. IMO the problem is when public trust is eroded when the tricks aren't transparent and everything is now credited to photoshop. Interesting chance encounters will have their credibility questioned (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, being critical is good!), and there can be a backlash towards "photographic purity". Even using flashes or other artificial light in nature photography can be seen as 'cheating' by some photographers. (You may guess that I have no problems with setting up lights)

Here's a long but interesting article aboutsome of the crazy macro photos from recent years: Pseudo-nature Photographers ? JW - Travel & Humanitarian Photographer Particularly awesome is the 'dragonfly in the rain' photo that placed high in a Nat Geo contest and the bold-faced lie about the making of the photo.


QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Just assume any of my stuff may have been post processed beyond recognition. See my avatar? I'm actually a five-foot four albino woman, but that Instagram filter was a treat!
Man, I've got to get on board this instagram thing. That's potent stuff!
12-15-2016, 03:33 PM - 1 Like   #216
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote

Here's a long but interesting article aboutsome of the crazy macro photos from recent years: Pseudo-nature Photographers ? JW - Travel & Humanitarian Photographer Particularly awesome is the 'dragonfly in the rain' photo that placed high in a Nat Geo contest and the bold-faced lie about the making of the photo.
Thanks, Brian, very interesting article, and of course, it won't be just Indonesians who do this!

I read somewhere that during the filming of the old Disney documentary on Norwegian lemmings, the director was told by locals that lemmings don't jump off cliffs and drown in the Atlantic, contrary to popular legend. Rather than go home empty handed, apparently the director had assistants throw the things over a ledge for the camera's benefit!

The commercially most successful nature docco of recent times is 'March of the Penguins', if you remember it. My guess is that for its appalingly anthropomorphic soap opera story line (replaced in the English version with a 'straighter' narration by Morgan Freeman), lots of footage of different penguins was put together to represent the parent couple and their chick.

Some day I must see if I can watch the French original with subtitles ... it's apparently more fictional than Shrek or Toy Story!
12-16-2016, 02:57 AM   #217
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
The commercially most successful nature docco of recent times is 'March of the Penguins', if you remember it. My guess is that for its appalingly anthropomorphic soap opera story line (replaced in the English version with a 'straighter' narration by Morgan Freeman), lots of footage of different penguins was put together to represent the parent couple and their chick.
The most profoundly important film, of any kind, throughout my life has been Disney's Bambi (1942).
I still vividly remember little 5 year old Wildman jumping up and screaming at the screen "run Bambi, run" as the forest fire approached. At that point my identification with Bambi had become complete and absolute and I have never completely lost that feeling. I couldn't know it at the time but Bambi had, at least subliminally, suggested to me a question that I would ask throughout the rest of my life to the present time:

What is the proper relationship between man and the rest of creation?

So be modest when trying to define what is and is not "reality" especially when it comes to the meaning, purpose and significance of an abstraction like a image.


Last edited by wildman; 12-16-2016 at 03:07 AM.
12-16-2016, 12:01 PM   #218
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
The most profoundly important film, of any kind, throughout my life has been Disney's Bambi (1942).
I still vividly remember little 5 year old Wildman jumping up and screaming at the screen "run Bambi, run" as the forest fire approached. At that point my identification with Bambi had become complete and absolute and I have never completely lost that feeling. I couldn't know it at the time but Bambi had, at least subliminally, suggested to me a question that I would ask throughout the rest of my life to the present time:

What is the proper relationship between man and the rest of creation?

So be modest when trying to define what is and is not "reality" especially when it comes to the meaning, purpose and significance of an abstraction like a image.
I found the first 20 minutes of Wall-E strangely affecting.

Just as melancholy and funny as a Chaplin film.
12-17-2016, 02:19 AM - 1 Like   #219
Veteran Member
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,310
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
I personally wouldn't put it anywhere without mentioning that it was a composite.
I agree 100%..... recently I had someone (pro photographer, well known) on a local facebook group make a comment along the lines "can't trick me" regarding this image



The image is a single exposure... simply edited .... his comment upset me quite a bit.... (I bit back... naturally)

A lot of people lable heavily manipulated "pieces" as digital art around this way now.

Last edited by noelpolar; 12-17-2016 at 02:30 AM.
12-17-2016, 03:56 AM   #220
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote

A lot of people lable heavily manipulated "pieces" as digital art around this way now.
I don't mind that term at all, Noel.



12-17-2016, 06:24 AM   #221
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
"can't trick me"
Trick - A deceitful action (OED)

This is exactly the kind of narrow simple minded thinking that I find so limiting in photography - photography as a copy machine.
Does the "Pro" think it would have made a less "deceitful" image for your purposes to have waited until noon , shot at ISO 100 with a MF body10 feet away with the couple insanely grinning at the camera.?
12-17-2016, 06:59 AM - 1 Like   #222
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
I've many times had folks tell me what I saw... "that picture is over saturated" blah blah blah, folks that weren't there. Their argument isn't with me, their argument is with nature. And their fault is that they weren't there. Folks who weren't there need to be really careful commenting on photos taken by those who were. IN this case
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
along the lines "can't trick me" regarding this image
All he's saying is if he wanted that image, he would have photoshopped it. If a pick pocket sees a saint, all he sees are pockets. What you do alters your perception.
With regards to that, if I see Angelina Jolie with a Pentax, I probably say "nice camera, what lenses do you have?"
12-17-2016, 08:00 AM - 1 Like   #223
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
I agree 100%..... recently I had someone (pro photographer, well known) on a local facebook group make a comment along the lines "can't trick me" regarding this image

The image is a single exposure... simply edited .... his comment upset me quite a bit.... (I bit back... naturally)

A lot of people lable heavily manipulated "pieces" as digital art around this way now.
Great photo and a terrific example of how, despite no evidence to the contrary, "photoshop" jumps to some peoples minds before "good planning" leading to an aggressive stance. Can I ask about the tone of the group you put it in? At the time, would you say images were expected (implicitly or explicitly) to not be composites?


On the topic of moons, if you want to kill some time, google "Peter Lik giant moon" for some interesting reading (along with some angry ranting). Unlike yours, it is about a moon photo that is a composite. It generated much internet rage. Partly because it's Lik, but also because of the way it was initially presented as being a single frame complete with a stirring tale about the capture, eg. Love it!: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review. This sort of thing is damaging imo, and gets people to go beyond being skeptical about photos and into the realm of distrusting photographers in general.
12-17-2016, 09:50 AM   #224
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,276
Last night I 'fixed' the exposure on a phone photo of one of my new Grand-twins (I have a decent photo editor app) taken in the darkened NICU. We can't use flash because their eyes aren't ready for that much light yet. My daughter complained that I always brighten my photos, so they aren't what was there.

Without altering the exposure I couldn't see what was there, but that wasn't her point.
12-17-2016, 11:04 AM   #225
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
Your daughter needs to spend more time letting her eyes adjust, Maybe vitamin A would help.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
amount, answer, argument, art, artist, changes, context, dishonesty, earth, emotions, energy, equation, hydrogen, image, line, matter, observer, photo, photographer, photography, picture, pp, question, questions, rate, reality, science, sun, world
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Philosophic Question AggieDad General Photography 43 06-10-2016 07:40 AM
Question related to a lens fallen off a table Penumbra Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 02-10-2016 07:50 AM
A small question.... wildman General Photography 2 02-01-2016 11:35 AM
A picture of a girl. And a question about it. Snowcat Post Your Photos! 13 12-10-2007 11:18 AM
An Answer to a question and a question. granitic Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 02-23-2007 09:28 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:33 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top