[AfterPentax Mark II]

Ok, I think I see what you mean. And arguing for or against adding/removing objects, swapping skies or using other composite techniques is quite straight forward. It's quite obviously not "the truth" in a documentary sense, but whether or not it's acceptable for other uses is another matter.

I don't quite agree on the basic criterium that what the camera captures is truthful, though. It never can be. Maybe if we only use a lens with more or less the same view angle as our eyes (to avoid distorting perspective) with a close to infinite depth of field. But how do we decide on a correct/truthful exposure, especially if the scene has a wider dynamic range than the sensor/film? A blown sky will "remove" clouds, too-dark shadows will also "remove" objects that might be there. And then there is colour rendition and contrast - both of which can be heavily influenced just by changing film. Etc, etc, etc...

Really, I don't think there are any simple answers in this matter, but I do think it's a very interesting discussion.

Do not forget all those people that suffer () from colour blindness. They see things in quite a different way than people (mostly women) that are able to see the true colour. By truthful I mean that you only capture what is there. And it has not any thing to do with focal lengths, angles of view or dynamic ranges. You see something in front of you, you take that camera and make the picture of that lovely field with deer. No matter what lens you use there should not be an aeroplane in the picture just deer. Nor should there be clouds if there were not.

[gatorguy]

It's absolutely common for any photographer to be a little misleading.

You capture the "good side" of your wife's face. With makeup. And dyed hair.
You move your camera around until you find a view that shows a scene or locale as more than it really is.
Posting selfies you make sure your bald spot isn't obvious and "that tooth" isn't showing.
You make efforts not to include things in the shot you might not wish to capture even tho they exist just a few inches outside your frame as any visitor would see.
You wait until the light is in just a certain position to emphasize some photo element that otherwise doesn't exist.

So framing your shot to put its best face forward certainly isn't entirely truthful, in many cases, but that's OK? Just don't dodge, burn, increase saturation, crop, or correct "that tooth" that showed up anyway despite your attempt to avoid it, because that wouldn't be truthful.

[RobA_Oz]

I don't quite agree on the basic criterium that what the camera captures is truthful, though. It never can be. Maybe if we only use a lens with more or less the same view angle as our eyes (to avoid distorting perspective) with a close to infinite depth of field. But how do we decide on a correct/truthful exposure, especially if the scene has a wider dynamic range than the sensor/film? A blown sky will "remove" clouds, too-dark shadows will also "remove" objects that might be there. And then there is colour rendition and contrast - both of which can be heavily influenced just by changing film. Etc, etc, etc...

Really, I don't think there are any simple answers in this matter, but I do think it's a very interesting discussion.

As I noted above, albeit in a slightly different form, “truth” regarding a three-dimensional object can only be partial at best when captured in a two-dimensional image, and sometimes can be used to manipulate the viewer. (Leni Reifenstahl’s photographs of a certain era come to mind here, captivating as they are.) So, does it become something less than truth, even a lie, in that situation?

[AfterPentax Mark II]

It's absolutely common for any photographer to be a little misleading.

You capture the "good side" of your wife's face. With makeup. And dyed hair.
You move your camera around until you find a view that shows a scene or locale as more than it really is.
Posting selfies you make sure your bald spot isn't obvious and "that tooth" isn't showing.
You make efforts not to include things in the shot you might not wish to capture even tho they exist just a few inches outside your frame as any visitor would see.
You wait until the light is in just a certain position to emphasize some photo element that otherwise doesn't exist.

So framing your shot to put its best face forward certainly isn't entirely truthful, in many cases, but that's OK? Just don't dodge, burn, increase saturation, crop, or correct "that tooth" that showed up anyway despite your attempt to avoid it, because that wouldn't be truthful.

Sometimes you have a lovely view, but that ugly street sign gets in the way. So you take that step forwards to capture that lovely view without that annoying street sign. I still make a picture of what is there, so yes, framing your shot to put its best face forward is entirely truthful, because that is what photographing is all about. Making a picture of whatever that is showing its best! Could be a portrait, a view, a macro picture of any insect flower and so on. As long as you do not temper with it and add things that are not there in the first place!

[pschlute]

By truthful I mean that you only capture what is there. And it has not any thing to do with focal lengths, angles of view or dynamic ranges. You see something in front of you........ you take that camera and make the picture ........ Nor should there be clouds if there were not.

This is where it gets tricky. If i take an picture of a high contrast scene, and expose so as to keep detail in the shadows, I may blow out the sky so that the clouds that were visible to me with my eyes are no longer there in my image. This is the limiting factor of a camera's dynamic range.

So a camera is in some circumstances is completely unable to capture "only what was there".

Photographers were using techniques like dodging and burning in the darkroom, and ND Grad filters over 100 years ago to make up for the deficiency in the equipment they were using to capture the picture. Today we can use HDR merge and digital dodge/burn to replicate the effect, and in doing so show the viewer "what was there".

---------- Post added 04-02-21 at 10:12 AM ----------

It's absolutely common for any photographer to be a little misleading

I agree. I set out to make a pleasing image, not to tell the "truth".

The argument taken to it's logical conclusion would have us all set our lenses to slowest aperture as only that shows a DOF that is comparable to what our constantly adjusting-focus eyes saw.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

"The argument taken to it's logical conclusion would have us all set our lenses to slowest aperture as only that shows a DOF that is comparable to what our constantly adjusting-focus eyes saw." The difference is that you see the DOF by using two lenses and that a camera has only one. I experienced that at one time when I had one of my eyes blocked for two days, because of getting something in my eye. I can assure you there is no DOF then. You cannot measure how far a car or a bike or a bus is from where you are. But as to the tricky part: there are a lot of scenes that I would have liked to make a picture of, but due to circumstances you mentioned I refrained from doing so, because I knew that I would not get it right. Let us agree that we have different visions of how to make a picture. That obviously means that my camera's all have a low shutter count, where yours may be higher as a result. Still, when I see a picture on this site that you made, I enjoy what I see even if you post processed it, it just means that you were prudent in doing so.

[pacerr]

. . . to slowest aperture as only that shows a DOF that is comparable to what our constantly adjusting-focus eyes saw.

But DOF isn't the only contested 'truth' here.

What is the least slice of time that you accept as 'true' by not blurring the perfect, the instant, moment in time.

How can 1/10th of a second pretend to accurately represent 1/10,000th of a second? Or vice versa?

For that matter, DOF must also be defined by an instant in time to be a criteria for veritas.

We must place limits on the practicable fidelity of 'truth'. How much 'truth' is enough? Or too much for the purpose?

[savoche]

And it has not any thing to do with focal lengths

Oh, but it does. If I shoot, say, an underpass with a 20mm lens on a K-1, I will make that underpass look like a tunnel of considerable length. Likewise, if I shoot along a street with a 300mm lens it will look quite a bit shorter than it is, and also more crowded than it is. None of them "show what's there" even if they do.

Actually, one of the newspapers here did exactly the latter last year to "document" how incredibly crowded a street was during the first bout of restrictions. They were rightly reprimanded for creating a highly untruthful impression without any post processing trickery whatsoever.

Perspective matters.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

Oh, but it does. If I shoot, say, an underpass with a 20mm lens on a K-1, I will make that underpass look like a tunnel of considerable length. Likewise, if I shoot along a street with a 300mm lens it will look quite a bit shorter than it is, and also more crowded than it is. None of them "show what's there" even if they do.

Actually, one of the newspapers here did exactly the latter last year to "document" how incredibly crowded a street was during the first bout of restrictions. They were rightly reprimanded for creating a highly untruthful impression without any post processing trickery whatsoever.

Perspective matters.

I think you misunderstood my remark. My remark is that focal length is not important for me to consider post processing a forgery.

[kkoether]

Speaking of cropping, there's also the argument that cropping should be done in-camera. I disagree; cropping should be most efficiently planned for but when is any image composition best dictated by a viewfinder, sensor or negative format (1:1, 2:3, 3:4)?

Imagine telling an artist they must adhere to a specific canvas or frame size! I certainly always planned to crop for composition in the enlarger when using a 6x6 square negative from a TLR. I see many images today that would be enhanced if cropped for better composition than the default format of the camera sensor or a common paper or frame size . . . IMO .

I use cropping to make up for the lack of a $2000.00 lens. A lot of my stuff is shot at a distance because of insurance regulations. People get funny about you getting too close to 200 mph boats and cars.

The 24 MP sensor in my K-3 allows a lot of room for cropping without pixelating. I can make a much better framed shot using that ablility than I can with my current lenses.

Before cropping


After cropping