Editing: I have posted this in General Chit-Chat because although it might be germane to general photography, It could generate a discussion of the ethics of editing. That is not my...

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I have posted this in General Chit-Chat because although it might be germane to general photography, It could generate a discussion of the ethics of editing. That is not my intention. It's just a cartoon of a guy getting the picture he wanted.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

What's the diff if he sets all that stuff with the computer in his camera or the computer on his desktop/laptop/ipad/cell phone?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

fourlocks Loc: Londonderry, NH

DirtFarmer wrote:

I have posted this in General Chit-Chat because although it might be germane to general photography, It could generate a discussion of the ethics of editing. That is not my intention. It's just a cartoon of a guy getting the picture he wanted.

An ongoing debate like JPG versus RAW. It always seemed to me the intended end use of the photograph makes the difference. If the photographer is documenting something for historical purposes, it should remain as untouched as possible. If the desired end result is an aesthetically pleasing "work of art" then anything goes, post processing. Even what our eyes "photograph" is post-processed by our brains so is anything 100% untouched?

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

"Changed the background with my photo editor program" is what makes it not the photo he took.

fourlocks Loc: Londonderry, NH

David Martin wrote:

"Changed the background with my photo editor program" is what makes it not the photo he took.

But what if he photographed both the sky and his subject, separately. The combined end result is "his" photograph, isn't it? Back in the old 35mm days, we would experiment with double exposures which was essentially using the camera to combine two shots. What's the difference? Basically, I agree with you; I'm just playin' the devil's advocate here.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

David Martin wrote:

"Changed the background with my photo editor program" is what makes it not the photo he took.

It IS a photo he MADE. It might not reflect reality, but it's what he wants us to see.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

burkphoto wrote:

It IS a photo he MADE. It might not reflect reality, but it's what he wants us to see.

BebuLamar

burkphoto wrote:

It IS a photo he MADE. It might not reflect reality, but it's what he wants us to see.

But then when I started out I tried to capture reality but I never could. I learned my lesson that my pictures can't look like reality.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

fourlocks wrote:

But what if he photographed both the sky and his subject, separately. The combined end result is "his" photograph, isn't it? Back in the old 35mm days, we would experiment with double exposures which was essentially using the camera to combine two shots. What's the difference? Basically, I agree with you; I'm just playin' the devil's advocate here.

Understood.
Even if he took one photo of the sky and another of the subject, it would not be the photograph that a he took.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

burkphoto wrote:

It IS a photo he MADE. It might not reflect reality, but it's what he wants us to see.

I agree. But as the cartoon says, it's not "a photo" that he "took."

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

BebuLamar wrote:

But then when I started out I tried to capture reality but I never could. I learned my lesson that my pictures can't look like reality.

But they CAN depict it in a way that people perceive is real. That's unadulterated photojournalism, or forensic photography — no "subject alteration"* after exposure. If I'm going to do more than that, it usually will be obvious it was done...

*Subject alteration would be removing storytelling elements, adding storytelling elements, rearranging storytelling elements... anything that seriously alters the "message" or "story" of the photograph that in the original scene.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

David Martin wrote:

I agree. But as the cartoon says, it's not "a photo" that he "took."

Exactly.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

DF, it appears your "not my intention" has already generated the discussion you didn't intend

My opinion is the cartoon is not particularly funny. I wonder if non-photographers feel differently?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Realist/Visionary
Literal/Figurative
Purist/Freethinker
...

Different people fit into different niches.
The problem is that some don't accept or acknowledge other niches.