Photographic dishonesty: The age of photoshop and "photographs"

Radtech1 wrote in post #9869643
As an artist who's chosen medium is photography I can tell you this: THE AESTHETIC OF THE FINAL PRINT is the ONLY thing that matters.

If I may offer an example -

The top shot below has won three First Place awards in competition, and the print sells for $600.00

How much do you think I could get for the bottom shot?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

That's perfect!

Radtech1 wrote in post #9870128
If I may offer an example -

The top shot below has won three First Place awards in competition, and the print sells for $600.00

How much do you think I could get for the bottom shot?

So you admittedly lie for money? Shameful.....

tkbslc wrote in post #9870203
perfectly dishonest, you mean!!

Actually, no, because it "honestly" and "perfectly" fulfills my vision as the artist - and that vision must click because when I said the print is $600.00, that is not a make believe price - that is what people pay.

Rad

I guess I feel that photography implies a certain amount of reality. Not pure reality. But for me there should be a bit of integrity with being there and capturing a moment. If I put in a sky that wasn't there, then to me that's being dishonest unless I present it as a composite, or digital art, or whatever you want to call it other than a photograph.
Clearly not everyone here shares my opinion. I composite for a living. I can't stand compositing with my photography, but that's just me.

kurt765 wrote in post #9870312
I guess I feel that photography implies a certain amount of reality.

In Logic, they call that "Reasoning from the Parts to the Whole".

Yes, photography can be representative of reality. You are making an unwarranted jump when you assume that since it can do a thing in some circumstances it then should do the same thing is all circumstances.

Just because photography can be realistic(ish) does not mean that it must be.

Rad

I believe there are two extremes:

- Those who prefer to expend their energy in an effort to "Capture"
- Those who prefer (and are blessed with the talent to) "Create"

Between these two ends exsists infinte levels of Grey.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #9870363
Between these two ends exsists infinte levels of Grey.

Actually, 255 levels of grey when working in 8-bit, 65535 in 16-bit.

Radtech1 wrote in post #9870379
Actually, 255 levels of grey when working in 8-bit, 65535 in 16-bit.

There is a third group related to all of this and I wasn't going to bring it up but...

:p

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #9870398
There is a third group related to all of this and I wasn't going to bring it up but...

:p

OK, been so long since I actually was ROFL, I had almost forgotten how.

Thanks

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Radtech1 wrote in post #9870445
OK, been so long since I actually was ROFL, I had almost forgotten how.

Thanks

Oh, can I borrow that diagram please? That's brilliant!

Do you think for one minute Yosemite actually looked the way Adams saw it and then photographed it? Whats important is the final prints are the way Adams saw it.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #9870363
Between these two ends exsists infinte levels of Grey.

Radtech1 wrote in post #9870379
Actually, 255 levels of grey when working in 8-bit, 65535 in 16-bit.

Dang.. My camera only does 14 bit so I'm only 16384 gray levels

So you then have to ask is the work of Jerry Uelsmann valid
http://scarvalho82.fil​es.wordpress.com …-study-jerry-uelsmann.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.c​om …s640/Uelsmann_a​rtist1.jpg


or what about the digital work of John Paul Caponigro?
http://photoshopnews.c​om …-show/jp-exhalation-2.jpg

http://www.johnpaulcap​onigro.com/gallery/scr​oll.php

There are both analog and digital means to composite.