Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 221257" data-attributes="member: 9240">My point is not to argue over what is and is not manipulation or whether or not it should ever happen.&nbsp; Of course it happens all the time, and it should, because the art of photography is about putting the photographer's/artist's vision in front of an audience.&nbsp; Nothing wrong with that.&nbsp; If you want to go down that road, no, a camera produced JPEG is not a &quot;manipulation&quot;.&nbsp; If you read my posts you'll see that I do not consider any adjustment of the light information captured by the camera's sensor to be a &quot;manipulation&quot;.&nbsp; I also state that stacked photos for the purpose of producing an HDR or focus-stacked image is not something I consider &quot;manipulation&quot;.&nbsp; For me &quot;manipulation&quot; is when you add something to the final image that was not originally &quot;capture-able&quot; by the photographer in the reflected scene.&nbsp; To which I would put forth that I do not consider star trails to be &quot;manipulations&quot; since they are stacked representations of the same scene over time.But that's not the point of my original post at all.&nbsp; The point is as the question, when an image that could not have been captured by a camera in single place in a single orientation is presented as if it were with no attempt to make the viewer aware of this, under what circumstances would this violation of &quot;truth in photography&quot; cross some ethical boundary?&nbsp; For me it's only when the image is put forth in a journalistic context, with the intent of saying, &quot;Had you been in this spot this is what you would have seen&quot;, and I believe it's the ethical duty of the photographer putting forward an image in that context to be clear about any deviation from those parameters.&nbsp; If it's stacked images, say so.&nbsp; If it's time lapse, say so.&nbsp; If it's a composite, say so.The rest is all just photographic interpretation in which, as far as I'm concerned, you're free to use and ignore the available tools at your convenience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 221257, member: 9240"] My point is not to argue over what is and is not manipulation or whether or not it should ever happen. Of course it happens all the time, and it should, because the art of photography is about putting the photographer's/artist's vision in front of an audience. Nothing wrong with that. If you want to go down that road, no, a camera produced JPEG is not a "manipulation". If you read my posts you'll see that I do not consider any adjustment of the light information captured by the camera's sensor to be a "manipulation". I also state that stacked photos for the purpose of producing an HDR or focus-stacked image is not something I consider "manipulation". For me "manipulation" is when you add something to the final image that was not originally "capture-able" by the photographer in the reflected scene. To which I would put forth that I do not consider star trails to be "manipulations" since they are stacked representations of the same scene over time. But that's not the point of my original post at all. The point is as the question, when an image that could not have been captured by a camera in single place in a single orientation is presented as if it were with no attempt to make the viewer aware of this, under what circumstances would this violation of "truth in photography" cross some ethical boundary? For me it's only when the image is put forth in a journalistic context, with the intent of saying, "Had you been in this spot this is what you would have seen", and I believe it's the ethical duty of the photographer putting forward an image in that context to be clear about any deviation from those parameters. If it's stacked images, say so. If it's time lapse, say so. If it's a composite, say so. The rest is all just photographic interpretation in which, as far as I'm concerned, you're free to use and ignore the available tools at your convenience. [/QUOTE]

Verification