And none of those grays are in any way a realistic rendering of the original scene - no colour, only two dimensions, the contrast and differentiation between elements of the subject which are affected by things like spectral sensitivity of the film, whether or not a filter was used, colour of the daylight, developer, time, temperature and agitation during the film development, etc., etc.
What would you say if the photographer told you that a "straight" print didn't look like the real life scene because of all the forgoing, so the print was adjusted to make things in the print look similar to how the scene actually appeared?
is deception
Due to limitation of the camera, film, and the processes to develop and print, it is not deceptive to adjust exposure, contrast, and even to eliminate spots due to dust on the film so that the film and print reasonably reflects the original conditions. But cloning in or out is deception. It changes what was there. That's a huge difference. Don't you think your judges would see the difference too?
The post in not political, just a historical reflection.
Fence post or not, that photo had an impact. It did on me. I was involved in anti-war/anti-draft protests back then and it was a wake up call when that event took place. I was living California and a month before the Kent State event, the governor of California, Ronald Reagan, reacted to campus protests saying “If it takes a bloodbath" to end it, "let's get it over with, no more appeasement."
That photo has been imbedded in my mind ever since. It was about a year later that the Pentagon Papers were released so we learned that “deception” had been going on for quite a while.
Several months later I was drafted into the army. I do not have fond memories of that era of my life.
MY example covers what you're referring to. If I ask my wife to stand in front of a statue to show others at home that we visited Paris and actually saw the statue, that's not deception. But if I cloned her into a picture of the statue and never visited Paris, that would be deception. Most people can figure out the difference between truth and deception. It's not very hard.
I know this has been debated, but I didn't know it was "a proven fake." Where can I find that proof?Below is a proven fake event. There are lots of famous others. Hardly anyone had a clue.
View attachment 334513
i
I know this has been debated, but I didn't know it was "a proven fake." Where can I find that proof?
Not at all "proven". Plenty of info on the debate on the Wiki page:
may have relied upon the 'machine gun' approach to get the exact frame(s) they needed/wanted.
Deception is all around us. Women wear makeup. Men wear toupes. Advertising abounds with imagery that can easily be shown as deceptive. One of the largest growth areas in the medical field is aesthetics. Perhaps life just needs a massive disclaimer that what you see is not what is real. Or are some calling for criminalizing image modification?
The meaning of having a "good eye" and "feel for the moment" has been diminished by capture technology. It is one thing to shoot a scene on few frames, then decide which one was best, yet another to keep the button pressed until card gets filled, then evaluate and pick one. First is still largely preconceived, latter largely a chance shooting.
cannot help feeling that the changes in style of photography are as a result of most going digital?
Why pictorialism was displaced by … straight photography? Didn’t they shoot what was in front of camera?
is staged straight or is it not?
And due to the fact that photographs are inherently unreliable - particularly black and white photographs - that is why photographs can't be used in court unless there is a witness who can say that a photograph is an accurate representation of what the witness actually observed.
In the Kent State example, if it were in any way material, it would behoove the witness to actually point out to the court that the "undoctored" photograph tended to deceive, because it falsely gave the impression that the post and the person were connected in some way.
"Machine-gunning" still requires the camera holder to decide where to point the camera. Maybe it's not as venerable as using a single sheet of 8x10 film and taking one shot, but the end result is generally the same: one photo.
Winogrand blew through rolls of film so fast, he couldn't keep up with developing them - and he would only decide if he had a good photo after making a print. That's not far from someone who spends hours at a computer sifting through machine-gunned digital photos.
How is it no different between taking say 10 shots of same scene and 2,000 ?
Really ? You are stretching my point. I keep asking openly: is staged straight or is it not? Pure definition appears simple, whatever was in front of camera. Below is a proven fake event. There are lots of famous others. Hardly anyone had a clue.
View attachment 334513
i
Arguing about the meaning of straight is a distraction.
….Specifically, if a newspaper prints a doctored photo, how could you trust anything they say? …
Below is a proven fake event.
We all believe what we choose to believe.
And really does not matter much whether there will be an ultimate proof what this one was.
HCB had thousands of frames never seen by anyone, but he was one of the prime examples of the fake "decisive moment" movement anyways.
the question remains if it is a "fair" use for telling a lie.
Arguing about the meaning of straight is a distraction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?