Are these photographers CHEATING?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 มิ.ย. 2024
- 10% SQUARESPACE DISCOUNT: www.squarespace.com/jamiewindsor
**********************
PATREON: / jamiewindsor
**********************
Are these photographers CHEATING? // What constitutes cheating in photography? How much image manipulation is allowed before an image becomes a lie? Is anything game in these days of advanced post production? In this video I look at photographs that walk a line between truth and lies. Some have caused much controversy, some have been accepted as fine. What is it that really matters in photography? Are our expectations of 'truth' too high?
**********************************
♫ Music
● Main video music written and performed by myself.
● “London Fog” by Blue Wednesday
Follow Blue Wednesday - smarturl.it/Blue-Wednesday
--------------------------------
Links
💾💾💾💾💾💾
MY INSTAGRAM: / jamiewindsor
PATREON: / jamiewindsor
Retro Video Assets Packs:
💾💾💾💾💾💾
jamiewindsor.com/retroassets
jamiewindsor.com/vhsassets
Retro Assets Pack 1 & 2 deal (25% off): jamiewindsor.sellfy.store/p/r...
Lightroom Preset Packs:
💾💾💾💾💾💾
Full shop: sellfy.com/jamiewindsor/
#1 My presets: jamiewindsor.com/presets1
#2 Medium Format Film Stock: jamiewindsor.com/presets2
#3 Kodak Film Stock: jamiewindsor.com/presets3
#3.1 Kodachrome Film Stock: jamiewindsor.com/presets3-1
#3.2 Kodak Portra Stock: jamiewindsor.com/portra
#4 Cinestill Film Stock: jamiewindsor.com/presets4
#5 Fujifilm Stock: jamiewindsor.com/presets5
#6 Film Pro: jamiewindsor.com/presets6
Preset bundle deal (20% off): jamiewindsor.sellfy.store/p/l...
-
jamiewindsor.com - แนวปฏิบัติและการใช้ชีวิต
If a photograph is presented as art, image manipulation is part of the medium.
If a photograph is presented as journalism, then image manipulation is manipulation of truth.
That’s why we make distinctions between photographer and photojournalist.
Photojournalist is one part of photographer, there are also many photographers who are not photojournalist but they don't "make" images as well,
I think is better saying like: that's why we make distinctions between photo-creator and photo-recorder
Photojornalism should be just informative snapshots of reality. But we dont value that artistically. Then people like McCurry do true photgraphy ith the "photojorunalist" tag and that is a problem... He is an image creator, as all other photgraphers. He thinks about the concept, the story, the colors, the feeling, the composition... He is dishonest by saying that he is a photojournalist because a photjournalist is just a snapshot taker, and snapshots are not interesting (artistically).
@@vectorhunter4659 imo a "photo-recorder" is still creating images. The camera is just his tool. He still thinks about the composition, the colors, the story, the light... That for me is still image creation bacause is a represetnation of a subject seen from his perspective. Two different "image-recorders" will not take the same image from the same subject. In fact the images produced may be completely different from each other and completely different from that same subject seen by other people in the same place. So, for me, every photography is image creation. Photojournalism is the same, a non modified photography is not a totally true representation of rality, it's still subjective of the photgraphers perspective. It's the same with the journalist itself. Theres completely different articles talking about the same event, but may be completally different. Theres not a TRUE story its always subjective.
Now to figure out how Journalists who capture social issues can benefit frontline communitirs versus "winning journalism" awards. (example: children at the border, image won award....while children are still screaming). 👊📷📷👊 Photographers....be an ally. Work with local organizations . . .
Exactly my point. Henceforth “fake news”
“Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth.” - Pablo Picasso
Who is Pablo Picasso?
I want to know more than an artist who made ugly art that sells for millions.
@@RatusMax A Spanish Painter
@@RatusMax My uncle
@@RatusMax ugly for you, beautiful for someone else. "Ugly" has got to be the laziest and most ignorant word you can use to describe a work of art.
@@carlosparra8976 I told you to enlighten me, if you read my comment...so what are you waiting for change my mind about it.
It becomes a lie when they say it isnt edited when it is. Simple.
thing is... as consumers, we immediately assume any photograph that is not highly stylized is organically composed. In a sense, we have to rewire the way we consume photography in order for issues such as these to become less provocative.
Darryl Knox and you opened up one more holywar box… is light correction or color correction an editing?🤔
but you are missing the point, I as a photographer can heavily manipulate the scene, make it more complex, make it absurd, or whatever, just by choosing what to capture, not even edit the photo, just composing as I wish.
Every photograph is edited...
Every raw shooter, saying not edited on jpg files, are lying. Because raw to jpg is editing.
Imo, unless you're doing journalistic photography, anything goes.
True but even in journalism, cropping photos in certain ways can manipulate the way a real life scene/moment is interpreted.
@@KaoriAnneJ But by virtue of being a photograph, we've already decided to manipulate the interpretation of a scene.
@@KaoriAnneJ :::: As in showing illegal children behind fences piled under Mylar blankets.
The headline was Trump's mess!!
But what was not shown was the copy date top left corner (Cropped out) the photo was taken, during the Obama era.
@@bigstick5278 BHO was just as bad.
Agreed!
It's nice to watch a video about photography and not gear. Thanks man!
Thank you. Glad it's appreciated.
That’s exactly what I was thinking!
Hahaha seriously! Now go back to that canon eos r vs sony a7iii ... 3 hours later, what about the new nikon? 😂
Completely agree, one of the best.
Omg yess!
If the goal of the image is art, then it's not a problem.
However, I think it is a problem if
1) You enter into a contest that specifies certain rules about editing.
2) You are a journalist. Purposely changing the truth of an image, even if it suits what you believe is the "truthful" narrative, is a problem.
Agreed.
I initially had the same reaction to the journalist imaging, but then I thought, this is the same thing. A journalist is forced to interpret what they are documenting. They are already doing this, because they, like he said in the video, have to choose what to capture, choose the frames and choose the cut. All these things we accept readily, for whatever reason. As a consumer of this media that they produce, we are, therefore, under their power. We trust that they represent what they see in a truthful way - and therefore that they don't edit out things that would help do that.
I highly subscribe to the point of view that biggest lie in photography is at the point you point your camera at something and push the shutter button. People started to think that photography is real based on few misconceptions, and they keep carrying it around until today. Photojournalists accepted photography as their medium to go because it's much quicker than canvas and paints, or notebook and sketching. But the photography was never designed to represent reality, so it fails utterly in doing so. I think, and that thought is highly inspired by Erin Babnik, that society would benefit greatly if people come with an educated scepticism to every photograph they perceive. Perception is, after all, an act of selection, and so is photography.
@@AndrzejMuzaj Problem is, some of the Steven Iconic images from his India series are staged from point a to point b which made a lot of people mad. As a photographer i understand that, getting good image from real life might take WEEKS and MONTHS you sometimes don't have but as journalist as well i see this as a manipulation of the truth aimed at creating highly overblown drama on the images, making people want to look at that "Poverty Porn" without the guilt because it was made by a famous photographer. The Falling Soldier by Kappa is almost 100% fake too but on the other hand that was the reality of life there and that is two big diffrences. Making recreation of reality and turning it into the grotesque reflection that looks good as image is not the same.
your point #2 is a bit limiting as well. Like stated in the video, as soon as the photographer choose to take a photo, he/she is actively choosing what to put into the photo, and what to leave out. That by itself is already a form of editing, and thus there is no way to do a "truthful" take on the situation.
Take it one level higher, even if the photos themselves are not manipulated, the viewers of the photo might choose to interpret the photo with a different perspective than the one that has been presented in the photo. Now what?
Even documentaries are created to manipulate peopler's perspective, be it a positive manipulation or a negative one. Thus, I think it's hard to make a cut-and-dry distinction between what should go into photography and what should not.
I think we have to draw a line between "Photojournalism", where it has to be truthful, and "Photography", in general - is an art.
I would include street photography which is a form of documentary photography as well.
@@Mark_James_Hill it could be both realistic and artistic 👍
Good point
Lol. Fck. Art !? Hagahaha. Look mommy. I'm an "artist"
Or...has it become an "Art" to cover up cheating?
"The true authenticity of photographs for me is that they usually manipulate and lie about what is in front of the camera, but never lie about the intentions behind the camera.” ― Wolfgang Tillmans, German photographer
We can't bee too naive to think that the intent will always be bona-fide...
Intent and context
Its really very simple. If it is represented as journalism or documentary, your moral compass says manipulation is unethical. If it is represented as art, manipulation is assumed
But even that is a grey area. What editing is acceptable in journalism? Does everything have to be straight out of camera JPEGs? If so, what photo mode do they have to be in? Different JPEG modes will produce different images with varying amounts of vibrancy. Should you leave your camera to automatically expose the image, or is selecting the shutter speed and aperture acceptable? Something as simple as having a dark portrait of someone in court vs a bright one without editing could change the story, even without editing.
While I agree that applies to art and journalism, the problem is much more difficult in other photography genres. When does one cross the line and become unethical when it comes to photo manipulation in genres like, say, fashion or nature photography?
A lot of American photographs make fun of the French law that requires to state any digital manipulation of fashion models, yet one can argue that many fashion editorial blur the lines between art, product advertising and social documentaries. Same with nature photography; Is it acceptable to bait an animal or digitally manipulate a building in a landscape in the name of art, and does that change if the same image is then published in, say, Natural Geographic?
If we reject journalistic photos because they were manipulated to varying degrees we will have to discard a lot of iconic photos. Like Robert Capa's Spanish Civil War soldier, or the raising of the flag on Iwa Jima, or the Kent State photo. Otherwise we will need to count on the lucky snapshot.
I agree with this 100
@@schwpzi8844 I think he pretty much meant what you said.
To me it is about honesty and not claiming it is a single image when it is a composite. A representative image is great as long as it is portrayed as it is.
So are you saying that you have to state how it is made? Or would it be ok to just let it speak for itself without claiming anything?
I think what matters is the context. A report photographer should be honest about how its done. On the other hand when it comes to photography as an art IMHO the process of creation does not matter at all.
@@poppop-oj6by Depends on the circumstance. If a known journalist is publishing a picture. The general assumption is that it will be journalistic and with that "objective" or rather not altered to display a different message then it originally showed. You wouldn´t accept and altered quote, just because it´s better for the message. And that´s how i understand journalistic photography. It´s quoting a view on the world. Picking a time, location and framing. But not changing it´s content.
@@MrGarzog ye I agree
Agreed. Honesty about it being a composite, and coherency in the picture. Many of my astronomical pictures are composites. I wouldn't dare compose them with skies from different places at different times of the year. I'm not going to add shooting stars that weren't part of the original shooting session. The truth of my picture is more important than its esthetics. If the raw truth isn't good enough, it's probably that I have room to become a better photographer, not that I should manipulate my pics more.
"What we see is what the photographer has choosen for us to see..." - perfectly explained! :D
Truth matters if the image is for photojournalism.
Unless your a liberal democrat and or socialist, then clearly the truth does not matter in photo journalism or journalism.
Journalism and truth do not go together
@@lightwalker9879 agree 100%.especualy true with the clearly liberal democrat bias cancer prevalent with "journalism" where the o ly thing that matters is selling the liberal democrat agenda regardless of facts, truth or honesty. Worse yet with no balance to the reporting and reporting with intentional ommisiins or posing views. Journalism is ruined gy democrat lies and biass.
Said no parent ever in history.
@@airgliderz Thank god no right winger ever lied. Like ever.
Ps: How many lies per minute does Trump utter?
This channel is the oasis in the dessert of gear review channels. Exceptional editing, captivating content. Thanks for posting!
DarkRami yep!
I completely agree
100% agree with you, I also get mad when people tell me that I shouldn't even do basic LR editing because I "alter the true colours of the photo", and I tell them that there's nothing true in the colours you get from a camera, and a photo doesn't really need to represent what you see, but what the photographer wants you to see, and how his perception of "reality" is.
@Rich Clark Photography doesn't color science only apply to jpegs
In the end a digital camera is nothing but a computer itself which gives its own interpretation of what it has captured. Basic photoshopping on a computer does the same, only that now the editor interprets what they want to capture.
@Rich Clark Photography I agree totally with your comment !!!
Beautiful
@Rich Clark Photography Well put!
If the photographer's wife find out that he's cheating, he's in big trouble.
Sash Potato Unless the outcome is positive and not negative!!!
The photograph revealed that it was the wife who was cheating.
Lol
@@sabatheus hahhhhhhhh
I just love how you approach photography from a more philosophical perspective. Keep up the great work!
yeah, his content is actually about photography and not about numbers and charts.
I actually gave a thesis on this back in my college days. Long story short- the answer to "when does photography become a lie?" is "As soon as you take the photo".
because regardless of using composites or editing/ anything, even 'true' photography is manipulated. Its manipulated through the camera, the setting/ shutter speed/iso/aperture/white balance ect ect. Even if you had a perfect camera like the human eye, its still a lie because the photographer is deciding the truth of the place, time, composition, story ect. No photograph is ever true- ever. Its merely a subjective representation of something from someone's perspective on something
@@corybrown8196 But there is a difference in concept between "lie" and "subjective representation" which is crucial. The distinction is in the objective of photographer. Fore example, both Reuters photo journalists & BBC filmmakers in Israel/West Bank have been caught recreating scenes using children to manipulative effect for "news" stories. That is pure dishonesty. McCurry can delete whatever he likes from his image for compositional aesthetics. That is not dishonesty.
@@warrenswales5693 I don't mean 'lie' as in some conspiracy to destroy truth, I mean it in the sense of "untrue". Not saying photographers are 'liars', merely saying that photography is 'not truth' nor can it actually represent truth according to the reasons stated above.
Keep in mind, I'm a photographer by profession. I don't mean it in a derogatory sense- but if you look at my portfolio, absolutely none of my images are true to life
@@corybrown8196 As demonstrated in Duane Michals. A Failed Attempt to Photograph Reality. I am a reflection photographing other reflections within a reflection.
@@warrenswales5693 To me McCurry's compositions are cheating if he claims to be a photo journalist, because that implies that he hasn't altered what happened and just documents it. It might not change the message of the picture, but it makes him appear to be a better photographer than he is.
I feel like it's time for photography to make a distinction like literature did: there should be fiction and nonfiction. This way, people's expectations will be justified.
On the topic, I really loved the series of photographs by Robert Longo - "Men in Cities" - shot in 80s. When I finally purchased a book with it, I read in the interview that he was throwing different objects at his friends/models to make them move. He then cut all the object out of the pictures. I now love them even more!
And yet, this is art photography. When you're a photo-reporter and you just add people into the shot to fit the story, it is cheating. Photography needs more genre clarification: journalistic, art, etc.
I like that fiction/nonfiction description. Of course, there's creative nonfiction and historical fiction to muddy the waters, but those works are labeled as such. It's clear. You know that "Gone with the Wind" isn't real, but you learn something about the Civil War from it. Photography is more wild, wild west... I agree that genre clarification would be useful in cases where it's relevant to the viewing of the photo.
I totally agree with historical fiction part - sometimes it takes writers 10+ years to do a research for their fiction stories. It doesn't make such books nonfiction though: research doesn't equal "proof" or "reality". This might be an interesting discussion!
No, only differentiate between art and documentary (okay to edit to look better but not set up or add/ subtract image content) photography.
Alexandra Prochshenko (
When discussing photos with fellow photographers one of the main discussion points is what you did in post to produce the shot.
Came across you yesterday and quickly becoming a fan of your work sir. It’s not only fun to watch the nicely edited videos, but also the content shines, stands out and makes you want to watch another video. Very well done!
Loved this. Well thought out and logical. Love these sort of discussions on the soul of photography, instead of just gear discussions.
I think the images by the photo journalist could lead to issues, I view journalists as people who should report the unbiased truth. Whilst I don't have a major problem with the way he's edited the images shown, removing certain figures or objects can completely change the reality of a situation to what the journalist wants to portray.
its how you crop a soldier or a victim that tells a story. journalism should just be showing the world what your camera recorded and not what your personal bias is.
we live in a world where the news is not trustworthy anymore..
@@qt31415 ths is never possible with social topics. good journalism (and good art) should show truth, but there is never only 1 true story, but many true stories to tell about a certain event or moment, and that needs to be understood. else it just drifts into simplistic media bashing and post-factual worldviews. (not saying "the news" is always trustworthy (its not), but it never has been). the world is complex and needs critical, differentiated, empathetic thinking to be understood.
Agreed!
@@manifroh6650 well if your reporting a situation then ok, you can crop and tell only about certain parts of a story, but actually changing the situation is something different, if you are reporting a news story then you wouldn't either just lie, for example saying someone is skinny and brown eyed when in reality the person is fat and blue-eyed, that's not a different perspective of a story, that I think is wrong, just as wrong as photoshopping an image to tell a different story, it's ok to change the perspective add effects and such to emphasize the story but simply lying that's something else, at least when it's journalism
Journalists, or anyone else for that matter, can and will not ever be unbiased. We all add to the things to what we experience. Unbiased is a made up word for something that dosen't excist.
Context matters. What bothers me is when photographers/artists DON'T clarify if the image has been heavily edited. There's an extremely popular instagrammer that almost never tells people all of his images are heavily edited. So someone just coming in would think their real. It feels dishonest to me. Removing a few people here and there, ok. But not doing something like placing mountains near a lake. And this is entirely unacceptable in journalism.
as a photographer i usually put the before image so you can swipe to see it on ig. i think it's important bc when i started photography i thought my photos were very bad, but now some time ago i started seeing the before editing photos from photographers i look up to, my photos and editing have gotten so much better, that gives me inspiration and hope.
This is exactly my take on it and its something I've been reflecting on for a while. I've now seen a lot of people that add starry skies, mountains and other stuff into their pictures and then post it online like it was a real image.
My issue with that is that the image becomes literally artificial (as it is not representative of any actual place anymore), but most times the photographer will still treat it like a real and probably even say where it was taken.
One guy I highly recommend following is Peter MacKinnon. Most of times he edits the images just enough so they're still representative of the actual place (although he too sometimes do some overly "creative" editing).
@@lucasbiaggini oh yeah throwback to his yt video where the shadow of a person and the shadow of the fake mountain go completely opposite directions lol.
I actually love his stuff.
@@LiisiB As great of a photographer as he is, being probably around my age, he probably still needs to mature and refine his work a bit. Its normal to go over the top with post, specially if your young.
Photographer should not ever disclose how they took, manipulated the photo. Your thinking is wrong.
For journalism and documentry photography all safely assume no manipulation. Though clearly not true for libera democrat and or socialist journalists where truth and facts are immatterial to getting there agenda supported.
I love these kids of videos you do. As a very amateur photographer myself, I hate having to explain ‘it’s not photoshopped’ when I post to insta. There’s a huge difference between creating art and faking something completely. Keep these up please. I love them.
Also... your choice in music for these is always spot on!
There is documentary photography where what is depicted is exactly what was taken for a moment in time (non staged)... and then there is artistic expression with manipulation of said images.
It's cheating if you're competing and if you're changing the main subject of the photo, unless the entire point of the photo is to be a composite.
Wow. This is quality
Thank you.
David Tothill Yes, he nailed it!! Photography is not about gear..at least to the audience, spectator. We want to know where and how the picture came about..photo manipulation takes away from the authenticity of the “moment caught on film”
Hello Jamie, do you have a personal relationship with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? The Son of God. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. - Romans 10:9. And please ask the Lord Jesus to bless you with wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and discernment. And please ask the Lord Jesus to forgive you for all of your sins and transgressions.
Thought provoking video. Love it. And you transitions are class 👌🏾
Brilliant video! Your thoughts are so sharp and well-explained that I'm so grateful of being here!
That fake airplane was a legitimate reason for disqualification.
But makes the picture 1000 times better :)
@@weplaywax It's not a picture when it's fake... you can only take a picture of the reality
@@19alexander95 There is no such thing as reality. Photography is about photographer and not reality. You know 99% of pictures you have seen in your whole life were edited right? I dont know a photographer who would take memory card from a DSLR and upload it straight to internet. How did you watch this video and still be so ignorant?
Roman Felinger No need to tell anyone they're ignorant. I think it is completely ok to edit your photographs and I even think editing should always be a part of the craft of photography. But the example of the airplane goes beyond editing, its manipulation. This, again, is ok if you're an artist and you sell a picture, like Jeff Wall. It does not work as a contribution to a photography award, though, because these awards are meant for shots that show off the photographer's talent to capture the "decisive moment", to cite Cartier-Bresson. But the photographer in this case did not capture anything, he just imagined a composition and created it at home. It's a fine photomontage, but not an award-winning photograph. By the way, taking out people off a documentary photograph is not valid either because the idea should be to show a perfect composition that one could observe in reality. This composition never existed though. The case of the elevator girl, is much trickier because, technically it isn't a cheat, it's only a recreation. I would not go as far as consider that photo a lie, but I understand that the fanatics of authenticity do. But that's a whole other question. Just wanted to point out the difference between editing (colour, crop, light etc) and manipulation (using brush tools in photoshop to conceeal stuff e.g.) because it is pretty easy to draw the line and photography awards do draw them.
@@derVlogdahalt No it's not manipulation, it has a name, it's a photography composition.
Photography as art requires manipulation; photography as news gathering requires verity, a paucity of manipulation.
Which verity? The mere act of framing and taking a still image represents a minute slice of reality. Life and art are always interpreted. The real skill is to capture a truth in a distinctive style.
i have for so long struggled with putting words on these thoughts. you did this so well! thanks :-)
Great Video Jamie. I loved your video essay. Very well produced, well thought out analysis presented, and overall very informational and engaging.
When you are presenting your work as a piece of art then anything goes. No worries at all there. When you present a modified picture as a photograph then you are lying to the audience.
so what constitutes "modified"? is cropping ok? what about dodging and burning? since we see in colour, is Black and White a modification?
it goes on and on. You can draw a line in the sand, but be aware that the line is arbitrary. When you get down to it, ALL photography is modified from "reality".
If the photo is in black and white it's transparent that this isn't exactly what the scene looked like it real life.
@@WithYouIDisagree If you take a photograph of anything, it should be obvious it is not real, it is a two dimensional representation. it cannot look like real life, there is no motion, there is nothing beyond the borders of the image, perspective, colours, contrast, etc are not the same as reality.
photographs are not real
@@AlanKlughammer "looks real" ≠ "real". Don't try to misrepresent my argument. I'm saying black and white can't be claimed to be deceptive as other editing practices might be, because it is *obvious* the photograph has been modified when it contains no color.
@@WithYouIDisagree The "real" world also has motion and dimension. Yes a photo can create the illusion of motion or dimension, but it should be obvious the photograph has been modified.
My point is ALL photography is modified. Each person decides how far from reality they are willing to go before they do not call the image a photograph.
If the goal of the image is for ART then i don’t have a problem ,
It’s when the image has been CREATED , DOCTORED , for (propaganda) or to (push) a particular point of view then i have a REAL PROBLEM with that ....and we are seeing more and more news media photographs and video being ( STAGED ) just for the cameras.
Victor All images are created. And they all push a particular point of view.
Victor A photographers job has ALWAYS been to stage photographs. The my frame it, decide what to include, which image to publish.
A single image is never reality.
1. 100% agree
2. Idk how you think parenthesis are supposed to be used, but it's definitely not that way.
*Grammar Nazi has left the chat* Lol
Photographers. . . . be an ally. Work with front line communities, don't exploit them.
@LagiNaLangAko23 Aylan Kurdi, the little boy found in greece!?
More recently AOC 'visit' to the internment camp a year ago has been shown to be staged/acted...
So deep. Enjoyed the thought process!!
Love these discussions - well done
I really appreciate just how nuanced your videos are. You always approach the question with different points of view and take in to consideration things I’d never thought of. I really appreciate your videos man!
One of the best photography videos I've watched. Thought provoking and beautifully presented.
I love your work, Jamie. You're like Every Frame a Painting had a baby with Kai Wong. Your concepts and writing are compelling and your editing and motion graphics are top notch, they really illustrate your messages well. You're an extremely talented creator, and I really appreciate your work. Keep it up.
These days it is more about "post"graphy rather than photography. You won't see unedited photos and it is more about your editing skill than ever when talking about photography itself and not the end result.
My biggest gripe with all of these edits is, most people will never tell the difference between those who aren't heavily manipulated and those who are, this does in my opinion ruin it for those who work really hard to get to the right place at the right time to capture the moments, even as a photographer with a decade of experience i can't always tell if it's real or not.
Personally altering an image isn't the issue, bringing them into LR and PS to bring out the data more and make adjustments to original image data, i my self do astrophotography where taking several images of the same subjects to create a single stacked frame done by a dedicated stacking software, this reduces the noise by a lot, making it possible to stretch the image more and preserve color data, what i have issues with is when you start to cut away and add elements in a photo and present it as shot, i can imagine there are many many people fooled by this and it's a shame.
I enjoy bringing out what's already there in the existing file but that's where i draw the line.
I love these types of videos of yours man! Pretty sure I subscribed when I saw your video on street photography. Similar vibe as this one.
Just love your inspiring
work! Thank you so much! Rock on!
This video is amazing!! Love how the idea is so rationally organnized !
Wow this is such a great topic to talk about! I wish we could all chat about this in person because I think a lot of people would have interesting opinions on this.........
I think that's the idea behind TH-cam's new "stories" feature, though I don't think anyone has gotten the hang of it yet.
Exactly! Such depth to this video.
I'm a photographer too but haven't had much commercial success as I don't use artificial lights. (except lighting that's already installed)
Neither do I make people pose or change locations of the object. I don't edit out objects if they are messing up the composition. (Maybe I will start doing that)
I only try to portray what I saw that drew me to the scene but the camera couldn't accurately capture the ambiance. So just Light, shadows, saturation etc
I'm not saying those who use photo manipulation are cheating, just that I feel guilty.
Oh God. I loved your video. It was like having a conversation I always want it to without speaking at all. Keep up the good work. You are excellent
I really enjoyed this! Thank you, Jamie, this was thought provoking!
This was a beautiful piece Jamie, truly happy by the way you presented this in a way that made me think a bit more about the subject and challenge some of my previous ideas.
Love love love this video essay. Outstanding work. Subscribed
Frank has never said he staged the elevator photographs. Which would of been the case if they were editorial photographs. The contact sheet clearly shows that he was working the scene, just like every other photographer does. If you look at Cartier-Bresson's contact sheet is the same thing. Alfred Eisenstaedt rarely just took one photograph. He often worked the scene taking various photographs until he was satisfied that he had covered the subject adequately. All these photographers are not just taking one photograph of the subject. Ansel was going take a second photograph but the light changed, in the time it took to setup for a second shot. He had pre visualized how the image would look when he was done printing the negative. He never printed a straight negative.
I 100% agree, the Robert Frank images were not staged. He didn't have a preconceived idea of what the final photograph should be. He saw potential and patiently waited until the key elements came together to create the right image.
Oh man great video and GREAT MUSIC!
Beautiful beautiful video. Thanks Jamie!
I would love for a table of photographers to talk about this topic. Be very interesting to hear different points of views! Anyways, great video and I subscribed!
Compelling video as always. Love your work!
I love how you’ve tackled this subject!
Really loving your videos. Top notch.
I don't think it's cheating. I think it is a combination of photography and art combine from a photographer that has a imagination that we can't imagine. It's creativity and viewers should appreciate it.
Great Video :D keep up this amazing content love your deep insight into photography and not just thrusting new gear into our face every video like most youtube channels :D
Thank you. I'm glad my content has found an audience.
Very good video mate. Hard to find videos like yours these days. Keep up the good work
I absolutely loved your article. Love your channel. And I feel it has been maturing over the years wonderfully. Thank you.
wow Jamie... best video on this tricky subject ever! And also: congrats on your first sponsor and on your patrion... you so deserve it!
I'm surprised at just how "surprised" people are when they find out that things they read, see, and ingest are almost always manipulated.
Like America
Like cnn snd new york times
Interesting topic and great content. Thank you for the clear exposition.
Your videos are very thought provoking and I’m glad to have discovered your channel.
This is such an impressive video. Well done!
Great video. My only disappointment is I wish it would have been a documentary rather than 10 minutes Jamie. It's so well done and created with your excellent perspective I could see this as an hour long piece. I was anxiously awaiting your next video after TH-cam's nonsensical move and was worried you may have left the medium. I'm so glad to hear that your fans responded. Keep up the stellar work!
Thank you. There's a lot more to say on this subject. I'll leave that for another video for now.
If you like this subject watch the series "Ways of Seeing" with John Berger; it's not only about photography but it is about the truth of images, ethics and etc. Super interesting!!
@@sofie1011 I will give that a go. Thanks!
@@canucklehead28 You're welcome :)
Great Videos Man! Keep up the good work!
Fantastic video. Great subject to talk about and beautifully edited. Thought-provoking, as a photographer who has absolutely embraced the creative-freedom we have nowadays to sow and manipulate as much as possible without making it obvious.
Very philosophical! I enjoyed this particular video very much.
Very interesting video Jamie, I subscribed to you last year, and really enjoy your content.
Thank you. Glad you're enjoying it.
Loved these video. The editing was on point!!
Absolutely beautiful video.
Thanks for making this.
What I called photography is a snapshot of reality in which soft improvement of colours, contrast and light (not changing them) is acceptable. The composition is what you get after changing the photo through Photoshop or any other photo editor while doing hard changes to the image. Both are art tho
There is two big line of photography. Documentary and art.
Excellent work Jamie, you make your point very well and you found a way of explaining “manipulated” photos that gives a large dose of clarity to a complex issue, thanks Del
I appreciate your approach to these sorts of ethical dilemmas! You leave questions more open ended for the viewer to chew on which helps us to think critically without forming our opinion for us!
Free art school right here. Thank you Jamie!
I really liked how you tackled this issue. I tried to ask another photographer about it and he was a complete twat about it.
Very interesting topic and very well made video. Thank you!
Really enjoyed this! Thank you
It's cheating if you don't tell how the image was made. If you pass of an amazing image as a photograph when it's not then it's cheating. Part of the value of art is the labor and difficulty in creating it. I think magic shows illustrate this perfectly. Everyone knows the magician is playing a trick on them and that he is technically lying, but this is acceptable (for the most part). However when he picks an audience member to assist in the act and says he has never met him or her before we trust he is telling the truth. If the audience member is working for him then the whole magic trick becomes trivial and loses all value. A real magic trick requires skill in order to fool the audience right in front of their eyes.
Composite images, CGI and photography are all different forms of art, but saying one is the other is when someone is cheating. If I claim that I 3D-modeled and rendered a person that looks photorealistic and it turns out to be just a photograph all the skill in creating the images is gone. With CGI on the other hard it's easy to capture the perfect moment since the artist creates everything in the image, but off course it requires a lot of work to do so. With photo manipulation the question is how much can you change and still claim the image to be a photograph. Things like color correcting and slight tweaks like removing a small imperfections here and there are fine in my opinion. However when you do something drastic like add an important element to the image that draws the viewers eye (like the plane) then you can't say it's a pure photograph anymore. As for staged images I don't see a problem unless the photographer explicitly lies about them. They don't have to say in advance if the picture is staged or not, but it's important they do tell the truth if asked. I never assume if a photo is staged or not in advance since that is a normal part of photography.
@@MW-dg7gl What do you mean not defined? It's an image captured on film or a sensor in split second time (or perhaps longer if a long exposure shot). We capture what we see. We use time and distance and light and texture to make an image with nothing more than a black box with a few dials and a shutter button. To me that's pretty well defined.
I disagree with you. You have yourself difficulty to draw the line between which manipulation is acceptable and which is not, because you somewhat know that photography is manipulation from the start. Even the camera manipulates the reality in terms of dynamic range, Color rendition, the lighting of the scene, etc. Let’s take the Nikon photo with the airplane. Let’s say that the guy, instead of adding the plane on post, would have waited a whole day until a plane flies right in the middle of the ladder. But no chance that day, no plane flew right where he wanted. He then comes back every day for months until one day, by chance, a plane flies right where he wants it to. Let’s say he then submit his image without telling the jury that the photo was staged, because he spent months waiting for this particular moment to happen. Is he lying because he is not telling that this is not a snapshot? Would this image be more about « capturing reality » that adding the plane in post?
@@jefft3814 Focal length and f-stop alone can heavily manipulate an image from what you see with the naked eye.
Where does it end should films have bad audio because the actor recorded his lines afterwards as re recording is fake isnt it?
Should singers record the whole song in one take instead of comps?
Maybe people in photos shouldn't know the photographer is there because surely our behavior changes when he camera is on us?
As a musician,mixer and sound designer this whole Idea of real and fake is tiresome.
I don't care if I'm manipulated I just want the piece of art to make me feel something.
Real truth is only necessary in Journalism not in art.
Fascinating train of thoughts. And superbly presented btw. !
Amazing content. Keep it up Jamie!
WOW. This is an _exceptional_ piece. I love the analysis, and it is simply _masterfully_ edited.
During college, I took a Photojournalism class. I wasn't majoring in anything that required the course. Rather, it was simply a general interest course that I took that wasn't counted toward my degree plan (even as a double major). I had recently taken a Graphic Design course (pretty much focused on Photoshop and Illustrator) and was currently enrolled in the subsequent course. As an EE/CS major, I realized that design is one of the vital educational elements that most CS programs omit.
During that course, the students were given several photography assignments for different stories. I quickly discovered that Photoshop is a fantastic tool for "cleaning up" shots that have a predetermined subject. Sometimes, those shots were only cleaned up. At other times, I actually added items (often from multiple shots of the same subject) to enhance the images.
For instance, one of my assignments was for a new campus building for which construction was delayed. I took several shots. However, I found that one of the buildings was the best but the "stop" sign in another was interesting. So, I combined the two shots by adding the stop sign from one to the other. In another, I supposed to come up with photos to accompany a story about whether or not an old building on campus should be saved from demolition by marking it as a historic building. I took a photo of some birds flying over the building; however, a good image of the building wasn't captured in that shot. So, I combined the images -- taking the birds and adding them to the best image of that building.
For each assignment, the class (and professor) would critique the composition. For every assignment, I received the highest rating -- despite being the only student for which the course was not a requirement. I realized that Photoshop is a fantastic tool for composition building. A story is being told -- particularly for photojournalism -- and that story is better told despite a few additions or subtractions.
I think of it like historical period dramas. Some parts of "true story" productions (e.g., The King's Speech, The Darkest Hour, Titanic, etc.) are made up. While Titanic wasn't marketed as a "true story," other works (like The King's Speech, The Darkest Hour, Victoria, etc.) are actively promoted as the "incredible true story" of the subject. I think that the same can be said of photography. At some point, the composition crosses a line from "based on a true image" to merely the result of good Photoshop skills.
No one would get upset if I removed the blemishes or pimples from a face or softened a bride's complexion. No one would be upset if I removed a power line, bird or even a plant. However, if I added a person in the image that conveyed a different sense of what is happening, then the photo now becomes a work of fiction.
It's cheating when a manipulated image is presented as a "found" photograph.
Daaamn dude. Absolutely beautiful transition at 2:50! Well done on the storytelling & editing. Keep up the good work :)
Ive been following your channel for a while and I can’t deny how much you have grown and how you have managed to impress me a lot.
From the simple transitions to the complex video editing. Amazing. Just amazing.
for fine-art photography or creative photography, you can do whatever you want, it's not cheating.
But if it's for documentary purpose, it's cheating and I disdain this kind of "photography" personally.
you can recompose by cropping or take more images for the perfect moment but if you are creating a image that you call it documentary, that's disgusting
It's interesting when i ask someone on line if it was processed and they say, no it was only processed though lightroom, as if lightroom cannot change an entire image, I think it has to do with our EGO, we like to think we are better than we actually are. Unfortunately TRUTH no longer seams to be part of a moral compass.
Alot of "artists" outright refuse to talk about their "art". That's the very first red flag.
Another excellent presentation Jamie - thank you
Incredibly profound subject and take on the topic. Your videos are so well made, you always have such insightfulness injected throughout the highly polished and professional result. I love how you inject classical photography icons and iconic shots, and discuss them with humanity and objectivity. You don't canonize or overly-romanticise something about them that they aren't. Happily subbed, my man. Excellent work. Hope you're able to turn your channel into a lucrative career.
Jamie, this video is very well put together. Pleasing to watch and to listen. The edit, transitions flow beautifully. You’re on a whole other level compared to other photography channels
Any modification on photographs should give information about it. So people can perceive the actual situation and the purpose of editing ....
The graphic design and animation is so clean and beautiful. Love your stuff!
A great question! But more fascinating is your approach to video, your creation and animation, flow is brilliant. I applaud you on your knowledge and effort you put into these films. I wish i had the motivation and time . Great work Jamie
Jamie, I'm always excited to see and absorb and process your new videos. THAT feeling isn't staged or faked.
What about filters, ect... Bumping up saturation, changing contrast and hues? Making a mediocre sunset look vivid, or a bird more colorful than it really is? Is that cheating? Of course I guess that goes along with the first photograph. It can make it hard in the game, when someone can take a genuinely excellent photo, but be outdone by some photoshop wizard.
It's an interesting question. The more I looked into this subject, the more it seemed that each case should be judged on its own merits.
That's a great observation. I feel what you do physically is not cheating. ie: lenses, filters, reflectors etc. What you do with a computer, is. ie: photoshop or whatever.
I would‘n call basic postprocessing cheating, even if the final image looks more vivid/dramatic than the scene actually was. Same thing goes for some techniques like HDR, pixel shift or focus stacking. (Combining two pictures with totally different characters however is starting to stretch it a little bit too far in my opinion, like blending long and short exposures tho get smoothed out water but keep a dramatic sky, for example). I would even go as far as to say that removing some things from your picture can be ok, but there are limitations. If it’s just some minor things, like a blackhead on the nose or a light in the background,that causes a distracting bright bokeh ball in an otherwise even background, go ahead and remove them if you want. Those might not have been in the picture anyway, if you took that shot one day sooner or later. However, I don’t think people should be removed from images and the same thing I would say about everything that is permanently part of the scene, like a lantern post, etc. If you shoot a skyline and there’s a crane sticking out above the buildings, I would say keep it, because it was a part if the skyline at the time the picture was taken.
And definitely don’t add anything that hasn’t been there.
Composite images definitely have their place, I don’t consider them cheating. I simply do not consider them to be a photograph at all.
Photography might be part of the process to create them, but I don’t think the final result can be called a photograph.
But who said a photographer should only produce photographs? Certainly not me!
Really liked this, super well rounded.
I love your presentations- you present complex issues- without an overly burdensome opinion and let the viewers decide where they stand. brilliant