Doomrider74
Well-known member
I was talking more generally, not just for my own enjoyment.
Cheaters Getting Caught By The Photo Police!
- Thread starter Feiertag
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
FWIW, I try to adhere to truth in captioning guidelines by NANPA and others. From that standpoint if the scene is basically as captured with no major subject additions, subtractions, multiple exposures and wildlife is actually free to come and go, untrained and wild I just post or use the images. If that’s not the case I’ll caption or describe the image accordingly.
Personally I’d let folks know if I cloned out other birds in the scene, combined multiple exposures, shot captive rehab animals and the like. But in the end that’s up to you.
You may not have a pet lion but you do apparently have a throne of stone
This is an interesting topic - when it comes to photo competitions there are rules that whomever runs the competition has defined and it is expected that those who submit for the competition have followed those rules, if it is discovered they did not then I see no reason why not to disqualify them. Now the rules themselves may be open for interpretation if they were vague to begin with and maybe even as technology progresses the rules do need to change to accommodate. For as much as the industry is trying to authenticate images, there will always be nefarious intent to remove these authentication features so we always have to keep that in mind.
A photo for your own enjoyment, one you are selling as art, one you are incorporating to your own calendar, or hanging on your wall has no rules. If you like the gulls leave them in, if you don't like the gulls, clone them out. Nobody really needs to know. In a contest, it may be against the rules and a disqualifying factor.
If I'm sharing a photo on social media, I will typically disclose any post processing other than white balance, cropping or exposure. No requirement to do so but I want folks to know if a scene has been manipulated. Now, for prints, calendars or images on my wall, no such disclosure is required.
We all have our limits and quirks.
I used to enter the big contests and it was made very clear that if you clone out anything you will be disqualified. I also remember the ones in the WPOY (Wildlife Photographer of the Year) contest when they won and later when they were disqualified. There was chatter online before they were caught. Not sure why the judges missed them but I guess with all they have to do it is inevitable. I remember when I was a winner in the WPOY I had to send my RAW files when I was told I was a finalist.
If it's a contest it's simple follow the rules, even a bag of garbage! I think he/she should have cropped it out instead of cloning it. Most contests allow a crop in spite of what the guy in the video says.
If it's a contest it's simple follow the rules, even a bag of garbage! I think he/she should have cropped it out instead of cloning it. Most contests allow a crop in spite of what the guy in the video says.
Robert S
Well-known member
When I take a photograph I frame things in a certain way. That way the photo only shows what I want it to show. Seems to me that is unethical.
IainD
Well-known member
I have never entered a competition, but I like my images to show reality. I certainly apply a bit of sharpening and shadow modification, cropping and simple stuff for my own shots.
A while ago, I took a couple of portraits of a member of the dog club with her dog. The portrait came out well, but there was a carpark behind. I couldn't really blank it out with narrow depth of focus. She asked if I could crop it out, but that was not possible. I used Photoshop content aware fill, and it did a really good job. Just what she wanted. I think that was about 2019 and I still feel a sense of guilt about doing it! It just wasn't what I took, but I guess that is ok for personal use.
A while ago, I took a couple of portraits of a member of the dog club with her dog. The portrait came out well, but there was a carpark behind. I couldn't really blank it out with narrow depth of focus. She asked if I could crop it out, but that was not possible. I used Photoshop content aware fill, and it did a really good job. Just what she wanted. I think that was about 2019 and I still feel a sense of guilt about doing it! It just wasn't what I took, but I guess that is ok for personal use.
Robert S
Well-known member
Iain when I look in a mirror I see a distinguished elder statesman. When I look at a photograph of myself I see a geriatric with a beer gut, bald head, and missing teeth. Reality is what you want it to be unless it gets in the way of another person's reality.
NatureBoy
Active member
Agree 100%
BlackRockArt
Well-known member
Going off on a tangent, I have very mixed feelings on these Game Farms.
Even those "wild animals" are fed well, but are those big cats really happy? Do they enjoy living a captured life? Are they aware of The Tru(ani)man Show? Do they ever get depressed? Are they harboring secret resentment to the handlers?
Now, should photographers disclose Game Farm pictures? I have seen so many too-good-to-be-true wildlife shots, that I couldn't help to be suspicious.
My doodles would like to know what people think.
Oliver
Full disclosure: this is a cellphone shot.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
i caught this a few days ago. while i generally like Thomas, i thought this was a pretty light look at the subject matter
Doomrider74
Well-known member
I think that was his intent.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
fwiw, a bit more thoughtful take on the issue
Cameron T
Well-known member
Eh....
I'm not sure he's actually saying anything. The video is the kind I don't like, where he's just saying a lot without making a hard determination. It's more "how does it make you feel" vs "was the image shown what was actually there". The latter is what Heaton is talking about. The former isn't something anyone here is debating. I could break down my opinions more if anyone is curious.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
i'd find that much more interesting if it was a walk through of forensics or something. anything.
basically all he said is "here are some examples of things that were caught, is it a big deal, idunno".
Jamie is at least trying to examine the topic.
Cameron T
Well-known member
I think they're both wishy washy, but I dislike the "but it's all art, and it makes you feel things" argument more.
I couldnt help but see the irony…
Is Doodles really happy? Does she enjoy living a captured life? Is she aware of The Tru(ani)man Show? Does she ever get depressed? Is she harboring secret resentment to her owner?
On a more serious note, what separates a domesticated pet from an animal raised in captivity?
MarcS
Well-known member
I am with you on both points you raised
Robert - I think we have the same mirrors in our house as you do in yours.
Ian - why feel guilt. You did what your client wanted (if paid or not, she was still your client for that shot). The "stars" of the photo were the woman and her dog. The stars were not the cars in the background. Cloning them out, doing a background replacement, whatever was necessary to make the photo acceptable by the client is OK.
I don't want to keep beating the drum here but I do think we photographers tend to get a little too uptight about these things. Sometimes to the point of reducing our enjoyment of photography or, at a minimum, our enjoyment of the images we created. I do not do a lot of post processing.
First, I'm lazy and I shoot hundreds of shots a day. Post processing is not a task I enjoy. I do what is necessary to make the photo look like the scene I saw with my eyes. If that means removing a beer can from the lake or cloning out some guy picking his nose in the background then that is what I do.
Secondly, I'm not very good at post processing. I see some of the amazing jobs others do and realize my post processing skills are far worse than my photography skills. I have the unique ability to take a decent photograph and, through post processing, turn it into a clown show.
Jeff
This has been a pretty good discussion.
For the photo in question, cloning out a piece of trash was probably an appropriate step from an artistic standpoint and incidental to the image. I would expect most people looing for the best possible photo would have cloned out the trash. I've taken photos where there were elements identified to be cloned out before the shutter was pressed - power lines, trash, vehicles, etc.
Photo contests choose their own rules to level the playing field and strike a balance between what is acceptable or not. Many photo contests require submission of the raw, unedited image for winners or finalists. Not every photo qualifies for a particular contest. There will always be contests where specific edits are not allowed. You have to follow the rules for each contest and it can be hard to understand variations. The Wildlife Photographer of the Year contest has been burned a couple of times and should be strict about rules.
Artistic or commercial decisions are different. There was some discussion a few years ago about ethical guidelines for stock images - and it got no traction at all. A few photographers added keywords to reflect the degree of control over wild subjects - unbaited, baited, controlled, captive, etc. For a photo on your wall in an office or gallery, anything goes as long as it is done well. Processing and editing has been done to photos for more than 170 years going back to the early history of photography.
With the growth of AI, Adobe is working to put a digital signature in images that describes editing that has taken place. In theory, you would be able to identify whether AI was used as well as other edits. We'll see how that evolves.
I've had to judge images in a contest where all editing and cloning were allowed. It's harder to judge because there are so many technical details of editing poorly that can be considered. I've downgraded images for chromatic aberration in a largely monochrome image, and sharpening halos when sharpening was applied via a picture control at the raw level and a slider was never used. I've also seen an image downgraded for obvious cloning in a purchased background where background replacement was okay but a poor cloning job in a purchased background detracted from the image.
Probably the one way to combat this kind of thing is to keep the prize money at such a low level that people are not tempted. Even then, there are some fine lines about what is acceptable or not.
For the photo in question, cloning out a piece of trash was probably an appropriate step from an artistic standpoint and incidental to the image. I would expect most people looing for the best possible photo would have cloned out the trash. I've taken photos where there were elements identified to be cloned out before the shutter was pressed - power lines, trash, vehicles, etc.
Photo contests choose their own rules to level the playing field and strike a balance between what is acceptable or not. Many photo contests require submission of the raw, unedited image for winners or finalists. Not every photo qualifies for a particular contest. There will always be contests where specific edits are not allowed. You have to follow the rules for each contest and it can be hard to understand variations. The Wildlife Photographer of the Year contest has been burned a couple of times and should be strict about rules.
Artistic or commercial decisions are different. There was some discussion a few years ago about ethical guidelines for stock images - and it got no traction at all. A few photographers added keywords to reflect the degree of control over wild subjects - unbaited, baited, controlled, captive, etc. For a photo on your wall in an office or gallery, anything goes as long as it is done well. Processing and editing has been done to photos for more than 170 years going back to the early history of photography.
With the growth of AI, Adobe is working to put a digital signature in images that describes editing that has taken place. In theory, you would be able to identify whether AI was used as well as other edits. We'll see how that evolves.
I've had to judge images in a contest where all editing and cloning were allowed. It's harder to judge because there are so many technical details of editing poorly that can be considered. I've downgraded images for chromatic aberration in a largely monochrome image, and sharpening halos when sharpening was applied via a picture control at the raw level and a slider was never used. I've also seen an image downgraded for obvious cloning in a purchased background where background replacement was okay but a poor cloning job in a purchased background detracted from the image.
Probably the one way to combat this kind of thing is to keep the prize money at such a low level that people are not tempted. Even then, there are some fine lines about what is acceptable or not.
Chaz Harrison
Member
I may be going against the flow but I will express my view.
A photograph, be it chemical or digital, is an artefact. A frozen moment and a frozen viewpoint generated by a machine in response to a photographer. it is arguable that it can't be real - a flat static representation of a real world view that is anything but. Presented as a print, in a book or on a screen it's immediately subjected to further change - either intentional or inadvertent.
I can see no difference between changes that might have been made to camera settings before the exposure and any made after. I don't consider the moment of exposure to be sacred - just an essential part of the process.
Recently I took a whole series of early morning landscape shots in The New Forest. I "pulled-up"the shadows (in LR) in many of these to reveal detail in the backlit tree-trunks that the dynamic range of the RAW files made accessible.
I am not a professional and I don't enter competitions but I do a fair bit of post-processing when it will improve an image. I can see that competition judges might feel the need for tight rules rather than adopt an "anything goes" approach but that will never affect me. Cheating? Only if you accept rules and then break them - I have my own set of "rules" but they are not rigid and if want to bend them I do.
Happy snapping!
Chaz
A photograph, be it chemical or digital, is an artefact. A frozen moment and a frozen viewpoint generated by a machine in response to a photographer. it is arguable that it can't be real - a flat static representation of a real world view that is anything but. Presented as a print, in a book or on a screen it's immediately subjected to further change - either intentional or inadvertent.
I can see no difference between changes that might have been made to camera settings before the exposure and any made after. I don't consider the moment of exposure to be sacred - just an essential part of the process.
Recently I took a whole series of early morning landscape shots in The New Forest. I "pulled-up"the shadows (in LR) in many of these to reveal detail in the backlit tree-trunks that the dynamic range of the RAW files made accessible.
I am not a professional and I don't enter competitions but I do a fair bit of post-processing when it will improve an image. I can see that competition judges might feel the need for tight rules rather than adopt an "anything goes" approach but that will never affect me. Cheating? Only if you accept rules and then break them - I have my own set of "rules" but they are not rigid and if want to bend them I do.
Happy snapping!
Chaz
John Navitsky
Well-known member
I think if we read between the lines with Adobe, Nikon and Leica's active participation in the CAI, that it won't be long until we see an end-to-end authenticated workflow, where you can cryptographically prove everything that has happened to the content from the time the photo was taken up to when you are viewing it.
I suspect this may be a bit self-serving on Adobe's part since I suspect it may be somewhat to protect their AI IP, but regardless i think it's coming and coming pretty soon.
Leica and Nikon Adding Content Authenticity Tech into Their Cameras
Provenance embedded at the moment of capture.
petapixel.com
Last edited:
Chaz Harrison
Member
I think if we read between the lines with Adobe, Nikon and Leica's active participation in the CAI, that it won't be long until we see an end-to-end authenticated workflow, where you can crypto graphically prove everything that has happened to the content from the time the photo was taken up to when you are viewing it.
I suspect this may be a bit self-serving on Adobe's part since I suspect it may be somewhat to protect their AI IP, but regardless i think it's coming and coming pretty soon.
Leica and Nikon Adding Content Authenticity Tech into Their Cameras
Provenance embedded at the moment of capture.
How will this deal with the "tame wolf" problem? (Please don't assume from this question that I think it matters......)
It won't but like any complex issue there's more than one element. This addresses the extensive, perhaps AI aided post processing element but sure there's plenty of room for issues with field behaviors and ethics that this won't address.