1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Cheating Photographers!

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by IvorCamera, Dec 16, 2018.

  1. IvorCamera

    IvorCamera In the Stop Bath

    I have just watched on YouTube a video on how some photographers which may include photo editors deliberately alter pictures to make them far better and more news worthy than that they really are this surely can only be described as cheating and misleading the public, I know it can easily be done with the arrival of digital and all the different editing software, but there was some incredible pictures shown from the 40s and 50s and onwards, some are quite well known pictures, has anybody got anything further to say on this subject! When I first started taking pictures it was all about capturing a moment in time, but apparently not........
  2. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    It's about whatever you want it to be about. You might ask yourself the question: "who appointed me arbiter?"
    Jimbo57, Catriona and Roger Hicks like this.
  3. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    You mean you started before the Victorian craze for composite photography? You're even older than I thought.


  4. IvorCamera

    IvorCamera In the Stop Bath

  5. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    I almost never made straight wet prints, nor did any one I knew.
    Nor do I make straight images today.
    Why would anyone?
    However I neither tell lies or do my images.
    But the unvarnished truth is rarely completely palatable to anyone.
  6. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    RogerMac and IvorCamera like this.
  7. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    I suspect that artistic licence goes all the way back to prehistoric cave painting. "My dead deer is bigger than your's".
    In art and advertising artistic creativity is the norm. For reportage and scientific photography faking it should not happen, but who is checking?
    I must admit to a very nice feeling when some reportage or 'nature' photographer gets caught out. I think the feeling is best expressed by that now English word schadenfreude, a lovely sounding word that we pinched from the Germans.
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2018
  8. David Loxley

    David Loxley Well-Known Member

    So what I read here, from some quite respected people, is that it is acceptable to make a print because "...the unvarnished truth is rarely palatable to anyone...".
    Truth ignored? A disgraceful sentiment.
    If a photograph does not shew it like it is and it is used to support a media report or advertising, it is a lie and should not be published.
  9. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    One man's truth is another man's fake news, always been that way (or is that fake)
    History is written by the victors (term used very loosely) and newspapers tend to print what the owner wants to see.
    Photography is the representation of what the photographer sees. It's true the camera doesn't lie but the photographer may see it differently.
    IvorCamera likes this.
  10. IvorCamera

    IvorCamera In the Stop Bath

    Prehistoric cave painting, that was another sore point when I was in Australia, the relatives took me to a cave to show me some painted hand prints, he pointed out to me that they were hundreds of years old, it was only when I was leaving the site that I discovered a empty paint can and some gloves plus a old used paintbrush behind a rock!
  11. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    The French have some real ones. And add an order of magnitude to the age.
  12. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    just as long as you didn't see "Rolf was here"
    IvorCamera likes this.
  13. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Does every picture you take include measuring sticks to show the real size of the objects shown and something like the front page of a national newspaper to indicate the date on which it was taken? :cool:
    alfbranch and Roger Hicks like this.
  14. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear David,

    Stop and think for a nanosecond.

    "Shew it like it is" could include blank tarmac or blue sky or the photographer's thumb. The photographer chooses what to photograph; with what focal length; from what distance; and at what moment.

    You're not another believer in "objective reporting", are you?

    As for objective advertising, words fail me.

    Finally, who decides what should and should not be published? You? What criteria are you going to use? And how are you going to stop anyone publishing it?


    alfbranch likes this.
  15. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    So I expect you don't allow your wife or daughter to use make up either. or have their hair permed or coloured.

    You are not living in the real world if you expect every thing to be shown warts and all. and if "Faults" should not be "corrected".

    A photograph should show what a photographer wants to show, or a customer wants to see.
    There are surprisingly few occasions when all adjustments and minor corrections are banned.
    If you make stitched pans or focus or exposure fuse, what then, are you so puritanical that you would ban them.
    I have been taking and processing photographs, mostly professionally, since 1945. it is only in the past ten years that I have heard such puritanical rubbish.
    saxacat and Roger Hicks like this.
  16. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    Perhaps the ideal would be for the viewer to be told if an image has been manipulated, and then deciding if this is important when forming an opinion about it.

    When manipulated images are offered as journalism with the intention of arousing strong feelings they become propaganda. This is probably as old a photography, but today does not requires a darkroom or the associated skills - it can be done in minutes on a PC and be available almost anywhere in the world immediately. The manipulation of images for artistic reasons is different, but I would still prefer to know if it's been done. I write a somebody who used colour transparency film for nearly 25 years, which is probably the only photographic medium that it is impossible to manipulate by 'post processing' (or if it has been dome, I've never heard of it but am happy to be corrected). Negative film has to be printed for display, which allows image manipulation at that stage.
  17. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    I seem to remember people sandwiching two slides together and 're-exposing using a slide copier attachment. It was a popular way to introduce rainbows onto dull landscapes
    Learning likes this.
  18. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Transparency retouching was a highly paid profession and was certainly done.
    However it was easier to produce a dye transfer print and retouch that. The result could then be used for reproduction or duplication.
    Kodak even sold dyes for the purpose.
    Equally colour retouchers could work on the individual separations when making trichrome carbro prints (pigment) or dye transfer prints.
    Both these processes were in use when I started and taught at college. At that time prints via transparencies were the preferred professional option, it took a long time before negative colour processes reached the necessary professional quality for fine reproduction.
    alfbranch and Roger Hicks like this.
  19. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

  20. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Chester,

    Yes, but what is "manipulation"? Dodging & burning? Vignetting? Sharpening? Cropping? Spotting? Shifting colour balance? Hand colouring? At what point does it shift from "acceptable" to "unacceptable"? And to whom is it "acceptable" or "unacceptable"?

    Ultimately it comes down to trust. And indeed caring. How much difference would "manipulation" make to the vast majority of National Geographic pictures? And who would care? For that matter, how much does it matter that "Migrant Mother" was retouched? From the Library of Congress web site,
    • Digital file was made from the original nitrate negative for "Migrant Mother" (LC-USF34-009058-C). The negative was retouched in the 1930s to erase the thumb holding a tent pole in lower right hand corner. The file print made before the thumb was retouched can be seen athttp://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.12883

    alfbranch likes this.

Share This Page