Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Ethics of postprocessing
Page <<first <prev 14 of 23 next> last>>
Sep 21, 2021 11:34:48   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
Charles 46277 wrote:
The idea that ethics is not important in photography is nonsense. One of my college students in Federal Prison was there 5 years for violating lawful ethical practice in photography (copyright). So much of what we do can be done either honestly or dishonestly. A picture of someone taken against their will for money is honest in journalism, but not in advertising a product. We can't always say what makes it wrong, but we usually know it when we see it. Where people disagree, it may take a court case and a jury to decide. Kodak had a good case that they never violated Polaroid's patent, but a court determined they did (the billion dollar damages were paid in cash on the spot), but anyway the technology was soon worthless to both of them.

Discussing ethics here may or may not accomplish anything--if it is just chat where people are not interested in what is right or true, it is just chewing gum for the mind.
The idea that ethics is not important in photograp... (show quote)


I have never heard of anyone going to federal prison for a copyright violation - it's usually a civil matter rather than criminal. At any rate, this discussion had nothing to do with copyright issues, or Kodak vs. Polaroid.

Reply
Sep 21, 2021 11:37:39   #
Barbonbrown
 
Reality? What we see is not reality. What we see is a function of our photoreceptors, processed through out brains optical centre and interpreted by the mind. The camera also processes, but in the example given doesn't process shadows in the same way the brain does. To recreate our "reality" in a photograph needs post processing. it will be done first in the camera, digitally by the manufacturers software, then to the taste of the operator in the computer. Every photograph is processed, to pretend otherwise is to ignore reality. Even film, the film sensitivity, the developer, temperature etc. Then the printing.
to take a principled position that "I don't approve of processing" is simply to say "I prefer my pictures processed by the camera maker only."

Reply
Sep 21, 2021 11:41:00   #
User ID
 
Charles 46277 wrote:
The idea that ethics is not important in photography is nonsense. One of my college students in Federal Prison was there 5 years for violating lawful ethical practice in photography (copyright). So much of what we do can be done either honestly or dishonestly. A picture of someone taken against their will for money is honest in journalism, but not in advertising a product. We can't always say what makes it wrong, but we usually know it when we see it. Where people disagree, it may take a court case and a jury to decide. Kodak had a good case that they never violated Polaroid's patent, but a court determined they did (the billion dollar damages were paid in cash on the spot), but anyway the technology was soon worthless to both of them.

Discussing ethics here may or may not accomplish anything--if it is just chat where people are not interested in what is right or true, it is just chewing gum for the mind.
The idea that ethics is not important in photograp... (show quote)

Nope. Thaz business crime. Never mentioned any such thing. You’ve completely changed the subject.

Pure UHH. Not even entertaining.

Reply
 
 
Sep 21, 2021 11:46:12   #
Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan
 
Just don't cheat anyone with your photography causing them harm, period.

Reply
Sep 21, 2021 11:54:04   #
WirtzWorld Loc: SE WI
 
Unless you are a photojournalist, your photos are free game to make whatever you want from them. I consider my raw files to be a resource or a building block for making a piece of art that is pleasing or useful in some way. I consider myself to be an artist of the same type as a painter or pencil drawer. Art is whatever you hang on the wall. I’ve made doughy women look slim and toned. Who does that hurt? I say the women feel better about themselves and the viewer enjoys the photo more. Photoshop is just a tool, so use it. ( now this applies to artists, photojournalism exists in a very different world.)

All of this is my opinion, not a fact.

Reply
Sep 21, 2021 11:55:01   #
User ID
 
Charles 46277 wrote:
If your pictures are realistic, how come a picture of a mouse does not interest a cat?

Do you really wanna know ?

Reply
Sep 21, 2021 11:57:26   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Charles 46277 wrote:
The idea that ethics is not important in photography is nonsense. One of my college students in Federal Prison was there 5 years for violating lawful ethical practice in photography (copyright). So much of what we do can be done either honestly or dishonestly. A picture of someone taken against their will for money is honest in journalism, but not in advertising a product. We can't always say what makes it wrong, but we usually know it when we see it. Where people disagree, it may take a court case and a jury to decide. Kodak had a good case that they never violated Polaroid's patent, but a court determined they did (the billion dollar damages were paid in cash on the spot), but anyway the technology was soon worthless to both of them.

Discussing ethics here may or may not accomplish anything--if it is just chat where people are not interested in what is right or true, it is just chewing gum for the mind.
The idea that ethics is not important in photograp... (show quote)


Why are you conflating the willfully infringement of a copyright by the reproduction or distribution over the Internet of copyrighted materials with editing one's own images? You do understand the difference, right?

One is willfully breaking the law, specifically the 1997 Federal "No Electronic Theft” (NET) Act for Unlawful Distribution of Software on the Internet (assuming a US case and subject to a 5-year sentence and $250,000 in fines). The other is creating your own copyright-able materials. There's really ZERO relationship with ethics nor criminality; and in fact, the 1997 NET Act is focused on the prosecution of sharing (selling) software and music and films. Again, nothing about editing your own images any damn way you please, even if you 'stole' the editing software.

BTW, there is no 5-year criminal penalty for "violating lawful ethical practice in photography". That's about as truthful and serious as I know someone who's cousin went infertile because ... If you meant the NET Act, the violator would have had to pick properly registered copyright works in value of more than $1000, actually $2500 for the felony offense and the 5-year prison penalty.

Reply
 
 
Sep 21, 2021 12:00:29   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
JohnSwanda wrote:
I have never heard of anyone going to federal prison for a copyright violation - it's usually a civil matter rather than criminal. At any rate, this discussion had nothing to do with copyright issues, or Kodak vs. Polaroid.


This may be the member's friend : https://www.justice.gov/archive/criminal/cybercrime/press-releases/2000/thorntonSent.htm

Nothing to do with photography, although it seems one could be swept up in a NET Act federal offense if trying to electronically distribute more than $1000 worth of copyrighted images in a 180-day period.

Reply
Sep 21, 2021 12:06:24   #
balancr Loc: VA
 
My thesis is that Postprocessing, even relatively heavy processing that Photoshop can produce, is a way to approximate the reality of a photo.[/quote]

So how many of us actually believe that the Mona Lisa painting is a "photrealistic" copy of what she looked like. More likely she represents what Michelangelo visualised her as!

Ansel Adams would do some dodging and burning when making his prints.

Years back I commissioned a catalog cover. The photographer took 15 - 20 minutes taking pictures and 8 hours in the darkroom to get the result we wanted. The result was definitely "ART".

Today we have more advanced tools. Even oil paints are totally different from when the artist had to create his own colors from basic pigments. So a picture is a (wait for it)... pigment of the imagination.

Reply
Sep 21, 2021 12:12:29   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
If you want to be a better photographer, subscribe to PhotoShop.

Reply
Sep 21, 2021 12:46:11   #
Delderby Loc: Derby UK
 
Charles 46277 wrote:
If your pictures are realistic, how come a picture of a mouse does not interest a cat?


Well, we don't have a cat - but I guess it's something to do with two dimensions?

Reply
 
 
Sep 21, 2021 13:04:33   #
User ID
 
JohnSwanda wrote:
I have never heard of anyone going to federal prison for a copyright violation - it's usually a civil matter rather than criminal. At any rate, this discussion had nothing to do with copyright issues, or Kodak vs. Polaroid.

That five year sentence for “a copyright violation” surely has facets not revealed in that post.

Reply
Sep 21, 2021 13:10:21   #
Charlied123
 
We are all in photography to create what we like. We try to create something that captures the heart of our friends. Put out what looks good to you. Everyone perceives beauty differently. We all have the freedom to create what we like. Show what looks best.

Reply
Sep 21, 2021 13:10:58   #
User ID
 
Delderby wrote:
Well, we don't have a cat - but I guess it's something to do with two dimensions?

Then why would a one eyed cat be peeping into a seafood store ?

Reply
Sep 21, 2021 13:19:14   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
Charles 46277 wrote:
If your pictures are realistic, how come a picture of a mouse does not interest a cat?


Finally something worthwhile surfaces in this thread.





---

Reply
Page <<first <prev 14 of 23 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.