Cameras and lies

spinandscribble

I'm been thinking about this for awhile, not only because its an idea for my work but just something about misinterpretation that has always interested me.

http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article639.html
this article talks about how editing affects this area

http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20090515_13
this discusses staging and doctoring photographs.

have any of you accidentally photographed something that is a "lie"? or maybe a illusion?

soccerc

spinandscribble wrote: »

I'm been thinking about this for awhile, not only because its an idea for my work but just something about misinterpretation that has always interested me.

http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article639.html
this article talks about how editing affects this area

http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20090515_13
this discusses staging and doctoring photographs.

have any of you accidentally photographed something that is a "lie"? or maybe a illusion?

The camera doesn't lie, it's the post processing.

spinandscribble

unless you stage a shot or move the frame to escape something that would change the meaning completely. That type of thing is what i'm talking about

Covey

spinandscribble wrote: »

have any of you accidentally photographed something that is a "lie"? or maybe a illusion?

All the time though not accidentally mainly.. nothing to do with post processing.. but presentation, composition ( for want of a word ) and perception.

I wouldn't call anything a lie though, just that images maybe not be what they appear to be, even without PP.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Once, yes.

A friend picked up his crying four-ear old son and held him above his head, playfully. I took the photo from behind, so you can only see the face of the child. It looked like the kid was being threatred and shaken. Didn't keep it.

spinandscribble

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Once, yes.

A friend picked up his crying four-ear old son and held him above his head, playfully. I took the photo from behind, so you can only see the face of the child. It looked like the kid was being threatred and shaken. Didn't keep it.

awesome, not for the kid, but thats exactly the type of thing i meant.

spinandscribble

Covey wrote: »

All the time though not accidentally mainly.. nothing to do with post processing.. but presentation, composition ( for want of a word ) and perception.

I wouldn't call anything a lie though, just that images maybe not be what they appear to be, even without PP.

yeah calling it a LIE is probably too strong a word i guess, misleading maybe...

PCPhoto

OP... maybe you should clarify...... from reading the articles you posted, its more about selective cropping and cloning.

so.... has anyone cloned extra bits or mixed two images together to create a stronger image.

or cropped someone out of the image 'cos they everyone else was crying and they were smiling (as kids do....even at a funeral when they spy a camera)

...apologies for bad example but you get the idea.

I have cloned in/out and selectively cropped images (due to idiots in the background making silly faces).... but its a very rare occurrance.

I would post examples but due to the issue about Boards claiming rights to images posted, I'm not gonna post anymore pics on this site.

Covey

PCPhoto wrote: »

I would post examples but due to the issue about Boards claiming rights to images posted, I'm not gonna post anymore pics on this site.

Different approach and result, but also won't post examples due to above.

Fajitas!

Don't be silly, of course you can use a camera to lie, no post processing needed. Photography has been used for years as tool for propaganda, images used to make people into something they weren't, places into something they weren't. It's been used by dictators, governments and press for a long long time, no dodgy post processing needed.

Taking out people making silly faces in the background is small considering what one can do with photography.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Good point. One remembesrs the photos that cost Peirs Morgan his job...
(unfortunately, someone else rehired him, but that's going off topic...)

Fajitas!

Hmm, it appears someone deleted their post :-/

AnCatDubh

One of the most famous is the 1994 Pulitzer Prize for feature photography.

Terribly tragic story of the photographer thereafter.



We all remember it and know it (and probably know the story).

My understanding of reading about the shot is that tragic and all as the circumstance is that the picture depicts, you are left blissfully unaware that out of shot was a UN feeding station and that the girl while fallen in the photograph gets up after a few moments and continues to walk to her mother and continues to the feeding station.

Yet, I don't think i'd classify it as a lie. It is an accurate depiction of a scene without wider context. The subsequent interpretation makes it become an untruth.

A camera will only record what is within its field of view during perhaps 1/120 of a second and a lot can change before and after that minuscule duration.

If you focus on the minute then you will only show a part of a picture. Macro photography can be great in creating something completely interesting and beautiful from a very ordinary and unattractive object. Is it a lie to do so, or is it just creative interpretation of the object.

chevron

Pictures them selves dont lie "unless pixel manipulation was involved by adding or removing objects or people" but its the story or headline that accompanies the picture that may mislead you into viewing the picture differently or in a different context as to how the image was actually taken.

For example.
This image would appear sad on a trocaire box
But could be different if the image was along side a story of how kids lure birds of prey towards them just to scare the life out of the birds as they get closer just for fun and to pass the time.

And yes the picture would have look different with the food tent in frame.
but that is not really making the picture tell a lie by leaving it out.
it would be a lie if the Bird was photo-shopped into the frame.

AnCatDubh wrote: »

One of the most famous is the 1994 Pulitzer Prize for feature photography.

Ok the example is not the best example i could of given but you understand what i mean.

SinisterDexter

Was photographing two people standing at a counter. Shooting on sports shot. Do you think I could get a photo with them both looking at the camera? No. So cut the picture in halves and stuck two with them looking forward together.

Would I do it again if shooting and official award/opening ceremony? Yes.

chevron

@SinisterDexter that to me would be OK as altho you used 2 pictures to create one the only real difference it made was were one person was looking.

Its not as tho you took 2 photographs of 2 different locations and merged them.

so i would be in agreement with you there.

smelltheglove

This discussion brings one image to mind.
City wide news printed the winning image of the give it a twist comp. The image shows the giant outside the wax museum standing on a cie bus, obviously a lie/illusion but I think it applies as a perfect example of this discussion.

chevron

I dont know the image you refer to but i believe i can picture it correctly in my minds eye.
sounds to me like the competition was looking for images of that nature so the person taking it made the illusion by taken it at a certain angle.

but taking pictures at acute/different angles is not lying.

even tho the giant was not actually standing on the bus and our eyes perceive it as it is standing on the bus is not lying as it was not photo-shopped.

Thats my thoughts on it anyhow.

smelltheglove

I can't link it now as I'm using my phone but it's a comp on pix.ie I'll link later

humberklog

Fajitas! wrote: »

Hmm, it appears someone deleted their post :-/

Nothing wrong with a touch of post post processing:pac:.

On topic...yeah go for it...sure it's all a lie to start with so you may aswell tell it as you want it to read.

chevron

I found the image when i searched for giant on pix.
wont add it here as its not pic to add.

it just reaffirms my previous statement about it as in no PP done and it was just the angle so not actually a lying photograph.

@humberklog
Yea a touch is fine but when you start adding in features and objects that arent there to begin with or moving objects around then it starts becoming a lie.

I understand that this is the norm in glamour/product shoots/and magazines.

pixbyjohn

There is a percentage of glamour and wedding photography which falls into this category. Both by the photographer and subject.
For example, lots of post processing, false tan, false smiles etc.

humberklog

chevron wrote: »

@humberklog
Yea a touch is fine but when you start adding in features and objects that arent there to begin with or moving objects around then it starts becoming a lie.

I wouldn't go as far as to call it a lie, as that word kinda entails a moral deciet. Whereas in the arts this manipulation would easier fall into a work of fancy or fiction. It's taking the viewer to where the photographer wants them to go (for whatever reason: vanity, artistry etc.). I don't really see a difference in a touch or a big dollop of PPing...the end product is what it's about regardless of the process to get there.
Although I don't see a big deal in lyng as such (it's just not a dirty word in my book, but is in others). It's such a human trait after all but it is still a strong word to attach to visual manipulation. It's only getting the end result of what the artist desires through a little trickery.

Promac

What about lenses and filters? If you use a fish-eye lens you can make things unnaturally curved but you aren't doctoring any pixels - the original image file is perfectly intact. If you use a polariser you can make skies look better than in real life.

Use the right aperture settings and you can blur a background obscuring anything that might change the entire meaning of the picture - the picture of the "starving" child and the vulture could easily have been unremarkable if the background was so blurred you couldn't see what the vulture was.

It's very easy to say that the camera never lies but words don't lie on their own either. People use words, and cameras, to convey something that we consider to be untrue. That's lying. It doesn't matter if the image is un-doctored or if you're saying something that would, in another context, be true.

Edit for clarification: I'm assuming there is an element of deception in the above scenarios and not just a poor choice of words/composition.

Fajitas!

Right, going on what a lot of people are saying here, EVERY photograph is to be considered a lie.

Pixels only come in a certain range of colours, film has a tendancy for tones and a limited white balance. Lenses, shutter speed, depth of field, it's all lies. It's actually not very interesting - Neither is basic retouching or manipulation, it's become a relatively natural/essential part of the photographic progress. Different camera sensors will 'see' tones differently and react differently to exposures.

Again, not very interesting.

What is interesting, is how photographs can be used as a lie, politically, emotionally, anything... anything... except that sh*te above.

Promac

Fajitas! wrote: »

Right, going on what a lot of people are saying here, EVERY photograph is to be considered a lie.

Only if the person presenting it is specifically trying to deceive someone. Otherwise it's just interpretation.

Buckz

Photoshopping a picture can be just intentional lie.
Composing something to encourage people to jump to the wrong conclusion- is that as bad? The photo below- the most commmon question I get asked about it is if he made it to the top. Sometimes we prey on the gullability of our audience.

Amending a set up to get a shot, or taking advantage of a set up-is that lying- you are merely recording what you are seeing, but if you know that what you are seeing is made up - is that a lie?
And regarding Kevin Carter's Sudan famine shot- there are 3 versions of what happened before and after the shot- he referred to this shot in his suicide note- Did the camera mislead or did the author?
And what are you seeeing in the shot- if it was taken with a 24mm lens, the child was in danger, if it was taken with a 500mm , the vulture was much futher away, and was nothing to be concerned about. Taking this into account, should all photojournalism be shot on a 50mm lens- as wides and telephotos distort perrspective, a fact that can be used to distort the truth...