Julie Loc: Northeast

Ok.Im new..dont have a clue.. but whats up with the fake pics…is this a new trend? do they realize most can tell they are fake? like a toupee

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

More code? I still do not understand.

rocco_7155 Loc: Connecticut/Louisiana

Fake pics???? Did I miss something?

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Join the club.

mommy115 Loc: California

What's a 'fake pic'?

rocco_7155 Loc: Connecticut/Louisiana

I think she's saying that any that are post camera processed are "fake".... Thats my guess anyway.

donrent Loc: Punta Gorda , Fl

Perhaps Julie is referring to those gad-awfull abstract creation that some have been twisting around with bright colors....

arthur Baum

Ok.Im new..dont have a clue.. but whats up with the fake pics…is this a new trend? do they realize most can tell they are fake? like a toupee?
======

okay, which of the next are faked?



ans: they are all "fake," but if they make the subject feel better then who's to say?

brokeweb Loc: Philadelphia

Would you consider a dark-room enhanced photograph as a "fake pic"?

peewee008 Loc: Bloomfield Hills, MI

I'm sure there is a line between enhanced photos and out and out photoshop alterations. The later being fake more so than the former. I blend both..thats why I am "Drfrankenshop) www.drfrankenshop.com I use this service for fun for those who wish to get their photos altered and blended

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Please view Arthur's three photos above. Each has had people blended into a background. None are original single images. Good examples of "faked" photos.

Nicely done, Mister Baum.

Let us NOT get sucked into a debate about what is faked, tweaked, altered, blended, bastardized, etc. PhotoShop, et al., has allowed anyone to manipulate photos, once out of the camera. The OP is attempting to start arguments and discord.

Do what you like, comment when asked, and let the rest slip into oblivion.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

In photojournalism there are strict rules about altering photos. However, I'm an artist and I can do whatever I want. (Being an artist is cool)

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

To me it depends on how an image is presented.

If someone takes a photo of a beautiful sunset, and then gets a different photo of a hot air balloon and makes a composite out of those two seperate images, but then with full disclosure indicates that's how the image was created... well that's fine.
Be up front about it and let the viewer decide. Because the image you have created is technically no longer a photograph but a photo illustration.

This is one reason I generally don't trust or take part in photo competitions. You simply do not know in many cases if what you are seeing is a true photograph, or a digitally created piece of artwork. And believe me there are plenty out there that will not admit to altering a photo to create a whole new image.

I shoot almost exclusively wildlife photos. If I post a photo of an Osprey with a fish well you can bet that Osprey caught that fish (no PS'ing a 'fake' fish into it's talons) and I can always supply the original image file to prove it.
Other photos I've seen, even in respected sources...eh, I'm not so sure.

Elle Loc: Long Island, NY

If a photo is intended to be editorial or for photojournalism, then I think we'd all agree that alteration other than giving it better clarity is undesireable and perhaps even illegal.

If the goal is something suitable for advertising, display, enjoyment or just plain fun, it's an entirely different story. The photograph is like an artist's canvas and the more visually appealing, interesting or clever, the skill of the person creating it can make it, the better. First comes the image itself and photographic purists try to accomplish as much as possible as they can with the use of the camera alone. Here is where the difference between an SLR camera and a point and shoot come into play. You can only experiment within the limits of your camera. With an SLR you can changes lenses to fit the situation. With a good lens that can cost more than the body of the camera itself you can shoot the distance of a football field and see the sweat on the players face. Most of us amateurs cannot afford the equipment that a professional will use and can only hope to do the best we can with what we have on hand.

What an individual wants to see is subjective..some prefer black and white or greyscale images, some like the faded look of an old photo and some like a colorful image that pops off the page or screen. I think we all agree that the image must be sharp and well composed to start with. If we all took pictures of the same thing, under the same conditions..we'd all get a similar image and how boring could that be?

mommy115 Loc: California

Post processing is an artform in itself. A photographer has the right to make any changes to their photo that they want. It just extends the art of photography into another form of photographic expression. No sense worrying about those who use it. It is now a more common artform than pure photography. If you choose to not do it, more power to you. But you need to accept the freedom of others to do photograpy in their own way. As Peter, Paul, and Mary once sang: "The times the are a-changing".