BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Did the guy try to pass off the image as a single shot? A photo posted on the hog has no need to be identified as SOOC or a composite. I'd like to see some links to pics on the Hog where a poster actually lied, pretending a composite was a single picture. I guess it may have happened, but I must have missed it.

It's common for people to post a picture with no comments, few comments, and nothing at all about how/what was involved with creating the picture. This certainly isn't dishonest at all. It's really none of anyone's business unless the poster wishes to elaborate for some reason, usually to brag or to seek helpful criticism.

This after all is the Hog, not Nat Geo, or a police lab.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

That ship sailed at least 20 years ago. If you want people to be clear your photo is SOOC then you best state that fact. I agree it is an issue, but nothing you say or do will get that cat back in the box. Not a big issue on the hog, but, in plenty of wild pictures sent around the internet, some are real, many are fake. Very difficult to determine which is which, so it's common to assume all are photo manipulations.

FotoHog Loc: on Cloud 9

Hear yee, hear yee all you evil liars- the sky is falling! - the sky is falling!
Stop your evil ways of posting composite images without comments lest you be denied entry into photography heaven !!! . . .

btbg

And you don't see a problem with that? That hurts the credibility of photo journalists and anyone else who is not significantly manipulating their images. But the sky replacement filter is taking it to a new level.

You have correctly identified the problem. Lots of wild pictures sent around the internet are fake. I posted a link to a story about Peter Lik trying to pass a composite off as an original image. I saw the image in one of his galleries in Las Vegas, and I will admit it looked nice, but it didn't look right. He lied and said how he created the image in a paragraph under the photo.

I'm glad he got caught. And I repeat, I have nothing against composite images, just not telling the truth about them. Look at what billnikon, sorry if I have your name wrong, has posted about it. He doesn't even view a composite made out of two of his images to be a composite since they are both his. Well, composite doesn't even have anything to do with who did or did not take the photos, it just means two or more photos put together.

The reality is some people are lying about their composites and others are lying by omission. It hurts the credibility of all photographers. And no matter how you slice it, not telling the truth is lying.

btbg

Just search half dome moon and see for yourself. Never did admit it was a composite image.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I did, and nowhere in the thread did the guy try to pass off his image as not a composite. The only person that questioned it was you, asking how the moon managed to get in front of the clouds. His sarcastic reply was"
"I shot the Half Dome at night from outside my tent ....somehow during post editing ...a moon appeared .. what can I say ..." Nothing about this response rings of a lie.

Prior to that, when you first raised the silly honesty issue, the guy noted in his original post he stated the image was "Cropped ... with an additional etc." He pointed that out to you the first time you complained.

The guy never once insinuated that it was a composite, and some even pointed out the issues, like the moon bleeding into the rocks, and your point about the moon in front of the clouds. It was blatantly a composite, and like I said, he made NO attempt at hiding the fact.

If that's the best example of someone on the hog lying about this you failed.

btbg

It was a blatant composite and not once did he admit that. Only admitted to post processing. That's not a fail. Nowhere did he admit to it. And I just picked that one out because I knew were to find it. There are plenty more if you look.