Photographic dishonesty: The age of photoshop and "photographs"

I'm curious to see where other photographers draw the line. In my day job, I make fake images. Composites. I layer things together that were not there. This may include adding an explosion to an image or replacing skies or making whole buildings and cities that were not there. This is what we call visual effects. It's fake.

When I do my photography, I keep things pure to perhaps old-school photographic principles. I never replace skies. I never paint things out. I stick to color correction and dodging / burning type techniques to try to create the same feeling as I had when I was there.

If do something like change out a sky to one that I shot on another day or in another location, then I feel it would be dishonest to call that a photograph. That has become a composite, just like the things I do in my day job.

I recall a photo done by Art Wolfe with a bunch of zebras where he copied some zebras around the image and then still called it a photograph. Art has some amazing work but in this case what he presented, to me, was a lie. It was the photograph he wished he could have taken but didn't get, and to present it as a photograph is deception. It was a composite.

The tools available now are such that fakery can be done with just a few quick clicks of the mouse. In the upcoming Photoshop CS5 you can do content-aware filling where you can remove whole buildings from images with a few quick clicks.

What constitutes a photograph and what constitutes something else? Images that are used for advertising are going to be heavily manipulated composites, but to present a composited image as a nature photograph to me is completely dishonest. Where do you draw the line?

I agree with you completely.

I once watched a couple of professional nature photographers photographing hummingbirds for a famous (but unnamed here) birding magazine.

First, they chose the background they wanted, ignoring completely the surroundings.

Then they put in real, perfect flowers, native to the general area but, as it happens, not found in that particular canyon. These were cut flowers, like one would get from a specialty florist.

Then they set up slave strobes and reflectors around the flowers, set up their camera, took a series of test shots, made adjustments, etc.

Then they liberally spiked the flowers with honeydew and/or nectar, from a bottle.

Then they waited.

And yes, they got some amazing photos of various hummingbirds "in their natural habitat." The shots looked great in the magazine (I bought a copy).

I consider that just as dishonest. And these were paid professional nature photographers.

Seeing is no longer believing.

I don't think I would go as far as the now famous CS5 video does, that is, removing major portions of the photograph. But then again, I'm just a hobbyist, not someone meeting a client's demands (as the narrator of the video explains).

However, I will sometimes clone out things like power lines, sensor motes, things I couldn't avoid. Never had a reason to add anything though.

Just ask Reuters about what's fake and what's not. It happens. Now, I'm all for cloning out things that aren't necessary, power lines for instance. However, I am not shooting for the news, which should be true to life. There are all kinds of documentation where a fake images was created and used in the mainstream media. It happens and will continue to. However, if I chose to clone out the acne from a senior picture, then I have no issue with fake images, such as those. However, turning a 200 pound bride into an anorexic might not be ok. Minor alterations is one thing, but creating a false sense of reality is different.

20droger wrote in post #9868534
I agree with you completely.

I once watched a couple of professional nature photographers photographing hummingbirds for a famous (but unnamed here) birding magazine.

First, they chose the background they wanted, ignoring completely the surroundings.

Then they put in real, perfect flowers, native to the general area but, as it happens, not found in that particular canyon. These were cut flowers, like one would get from a specialty florist.

Then they set up slave strobes and reflectors around the flowers, set up their camera, took a series of test shots, made adjustments, etc.

Then they liberally spiked the flowers with honeydew and/or nectar, from a bottle.

Then they waited.

And yes, they got some amazing photos of various hummingbirds "in their natural habitat." The shots looked great in the magazine (I bought a copy).

I consider that just as dishonest. And these were paid professional nature photographers.

Seeing is no longer believing.

I can see that. I agree that this is wrong. However, if they baited the hummingbirds and didn't alter the environment at all, I'm ok with that. Nothing wrong w/ a little bribery. It's like going to the zoo and snapping a picture of a tiger and saying the shot was taken in the wild. I actually had a guy do that to me one time. Little did he know that I know the exact tiger he took a picture of at the zoo.

When you're doing client work that's one thing. In advertising everything is controlled. If you're doing nature and landscape photography and making modifications like changing the sky, that's what I have a problem with.

I find it amazing that people talk of fake photography as though it came out of the digital age, that it is somehow new.

No, it's not new!

Fake photographs have been made for over 100 years. Adding things to photographs, taking them away has been done many times in the film era, and continues to be done.

As Ansel Adams often said, photography is a big fat lie (I parapharse). He often said that his awesome landscapes look a lot better then the real scene. He felt that photography is about making a scene better then it really is. It's often about making that bride prettier then she really is, same for portraiture, the list goes on long and wide. Do any of you really think Ansel's landscapes were what he really saw at the scene? If you do, I have a bridge in San Francisco I'd like to sell you for $50. He dodged and burned, applied masks and layers in his wet photo shop...sound familiar? And he did it for the same reasons we do it in the dry dark room...to make the composition look different and better then what we really saw.

There is nothing immoral about this. This is not a moral issue.

Photography is a big fat lie, and it lies beacause of the focal length of the lenses we use, or the sensor size, or the colors rendered by the film, or sensor, or lens. A lens can make a fat person less or more fat depending.

There is very little truth in photography, so what is the big deal here? What, a revealation from God the OP had here?!?

A tempest in a teapot, to be sure.

The only type of photography that can be bad is if the photographer uses his fake work to incite fraud; saying it depicts X when in actuality it's really Y, like in police work, and journalism too.

Save your convictions, and feelings of guilt and indignation for real fraud and untruths, like child abuse, the redistribution of wealth, cancer, and AIDS.

SilverUser wrote in post #9868617
The only type of photography that can be bad is if the photographer uses his fake work to incite fraud; saying it depicts X when in actuality it's really Y, like in police work, and journalism too.

Save your convictions, and feelings of guilt and indignation for real fraud and untruths, like child abuse, the redistribution of wealth, cancer, and AIDS.

Like I said. For me the line of fraud is crossed when you are adding and subtracting things from the scene, not when you are doing color corrections (including dodging and burning). I am asking where others draw the line and obviously for you the line is drawn elsewhere. If I take a picture of a lion in a zoo and then pass it off as a wild lion, to me that is fraud.

This is a photography forum. If you want to go talk about cancer, aids, etc then take your discussion elsewhere.

Its a blurry line between photograph and illustration it seems, and not just today. Its just easier now. haha.

I don't know, I mean is removing a girl's freckle enough to consider it no longer true enough to reality to NOT be a photo? And if that isn't enough, is covering brown spots in grass with a clone tool enough? Removing an unwanted sign from a background wall? Or is it not until we introduce things that actually weren't there?

I would feel like a liar if I took a picture of a car, then like, added flames shooting out the exhaust or something.

kurt765 wrote in post #9868610
When you're doing client work that's one thing. In advertising everything is controlled. If you're doing nature and landscape photography and making modifications like changing the sky, that's what I have a problem with.

As long as the image has been identified up front as being a composite, I don't have a problem with it, whether its nature/landscape, advertising or any other genre. Blatant deception is another matter altogether...

Personally, I think anything that can be captured "in camera" is fair game as being "real". That includes the use of special lighting and filters. Beyond that I generally except that anyone who refers to themselves as a photog (hobbyist or otherwise) is likely doing some level of PP.

chopperdave wrote in post #9868690
Its a blurry line between photograph and illustration it seems, and not just today. Its just easier now. haha.

I don't know, I mean is removing a girl's freckle enough to consider it no longer true enough to reality to NOT be a photo? And if that isn't enough, is covering brown spots in grass with a clone tool enough? Removing an unwanted sign from a background wall? Or is it not until we introduce things that actually weren't there?

I would feel like a liar if I took a picture of a car, then like, added flames shooting out the exhaust or something.

I think I would make the distinction based on the circumstance. For instance, If I were buying a car I would consider it fraud if someone cloned out a scratch, but if someone were trying to take a picture to be artistic or appealing it wouldn't bother me.

Is photography art? When an artist paints a picture does he always paint it as it is exactly at that moment?

Kafn8td wrote in post #9868888
Is photography art? When an artist paints a picture does he always paint it as it is exactly at that moment?

Ah, interesting point. We do assume on this topic that the "point" of photography is to show reality. That really isn't necessarily true.

As it's been pointed out already, if it's for journalism, clearly altering of any sort is a no-go. But for the sake of art, there is no reason why photographs can't be altered.

But again, the question isn't if it's "ok" to do - the question is "should" we be still calling highly manipulated works photographs still.

I really think it's a matter of personal opinion, and I don't care if you call it a photograph no matter how altered, so long as it's revealed that a lot of post-processing has been done to it. Lots of people who don't know about photography will assume that it's all been done in camera. I for one had no idea what was and wasn't capable in camera until I took photography up as an interest.

Additionally I think it's very dishonest to pretend that you have the skills to create an image that IS possible in camera, but which Wasn't done in camera by not stating so.

Yeeet, at the same time when it comes to working for clients I think that none of that really matters - the end result is what matters, not so much how you got there.

You can see that I don't see things as black and white, but with many shades of gray

Wait, you mean thre is no such thing as B&W in real life? Dammit...I've been conned!!!

Seriously, it's all in the representation and purpose of the photograph. If you don't agree with Photoshop because someone can make a bland image look spectacular but you don't know Photoshop enough to do the same, then that's just jealousy on your part. Ain't nothing wrong with cloning out a tree, some trash, etc, as long as it's to fullfill a vision or it's wanted by a client.

If that photo was claimed to be a 100% real dipiction of the scene, then yeah, that's kind of fraudulent. (Someone mentioned police report and journalism...I agree)

Otherwise, chalk it up to art.