Comments on: Distorting Reality

By: David Kaill

David Kaill — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:10:40 +0000

I’d like to offer up another thought on this elderly thread

It can be argued that a crime has been committed against the viewer when an image is altered but presented in a fashion in which a reasonable person would think they are viewing unaltered images. In the case of the Olympics, the debate could range from “no crime” to “small crime.” Nobody was defamed, nobody went to war, etc.

But the same mechanics are at work in this story: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp
…a scenario with much higher stakes.

I think that there’s a significant issue here – a complicated cocktail of editing tools in more hands than ever, cameraphones recording crimes, UGC media is admitted into court, etc etc. I’m comforted to think that that Steve Kalman (above) and others are taking time to really consider this changing environment.

By: Wes Koehler

Wes Koehler — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:40:17 +0000

Thursday, October 16th, 2008 7:33 P.M.
Most of the digital cameras do such an excellent job that the images are ready to be framed “right out of the box” depending on the photographer’s artistic viewpoint. I tell people at galleries that the only Photo-shopping I did was scaling the image down. Thank goodness for this $200 feature!

By: Pete Gaughan

Pete Gaughan — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:31:33 +0000

“Of course, they still shouldâ€™ve been more explicit about the CGI, when watching it we were pretty sure it wasnâ€™t real and they shouldâ€™ve said so.”

However: the announcers on NBC *did* say, at least twice, that the footstep fireworks were CGI. And given the intent of the opening ceremony — a beautiful work of art by a film director — I don’t object to the use of virtual tools there, with or without disclosure.

(Yes, I wish the Chinese government had allowed the actual child singer to perform instead of using the unethical “Singin’ in the Rain” trick. But even there, the way we viewers were deceived is minor compared to the injustice to the singer.)

By: Daniel Sheehan

Daniel Sheehan — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:44:28 +0000

What about all of the magazines you see on the news stand. Every single photo has been photoshopped. When you remove bags under a woman’s eyes and smooth out her skin and eliminate blemishes, are they fooling us?
I just had a client, an unnamed executive at a local company, who requested me to perform such work on her photos.
She wound up looking 20 years younger. How bad is that? How much are we fooling folks?

By: Dan Walters

Dan Walters — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:06:56 +0000

An interesting question that I was thinking about when I was listening to NPR interview a musician and then they played “live” music of this person. It sounded like there were 20 or more people playing, yet it was only her playing only a fret board of a cello with a pickup, no body, through a synthesizer. Through the digital synthesizer the music sounded great, but was it real music, or fake? As I thought about it, if Beethoven were alive I believe he would utilize all of our technology for his music.

I think your point is well taken, if she were trying to pass herself off as a real band, it would then be unethical (which she wasn’t).

For me the tough question is this, at some point our photo’s, or synthesized music, will be heard or seen and the person viewing or hearing it will not know that it has been digitally enhanced. What then? Do we have an obligation to somehow mark that these have been digitally enhanced? Do we differentiate these so that in the future the unsuspecting will know?

By: Tim Grey

Tim Grey — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:37:02 +0000

steve m:

A fair point about my use of the words “completely faked”. True that only the “footprints” portion of the show was faked.

And I just read today about the lip sync story. I for one find it unfortunate that these days it seems, more and more, that appearances are everything (even when they’re bogus).

Tim

By: steve m

steve m — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:24:43 +0000

Saying the “fireworks display shown during the opening ceremonies was completely faked” is a little excessive. From what I’ve read it was only the overhead footage of the “footstep” fireworks heading into the stadium that was pre-rendered, even though those fireworks did still go off roughly as shown. Of course, they still should’ve been more explicit about the CGI, when watching it we were pretty sure it wasn’t real and they should’ve said so.

If you want to be upset about some fakery, it should be about them having a girl lip sync a song during the ceremonies because the actual singer wasn’t cute enough: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/08/12/oly.kids/

By: Paul Pokrywka

Paul Pokrywka — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:06:25 +0000

What a disapointment to find out that the fireworks were a creation and not told. I think that is just about as bad as if the athletes were allowed to take drugs to enhanse their performance.

Even though the Chinese Olympic Committee had it produced and sent out, the World Wide Olympic committee bares resposibility for it.

- Paul

By: Steve Kalman

Steve Kalman — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:49:06 +0000

I’m with you on this one. There is a big line between photojournalism where tweaks like adding some light or contrast are OK but that’s it and art where the author can do just about anything.

I often teach a computer forensics class and a major discussion point is what an examiner is allowed to do (and the opposite side, detecting what the other side did). This often leads to discussions about how techniques affects ethics. For example, is it ethical to take a picture using a telephoto or wide angle lens in order to make something appear closer or further away than it really is? If something was shot in silhouette, is it OK to change exposure to make things visible that could not be seen at the time of the incident? Lots of examples, very hard to establish rules.

Thanks for an interesting point.

Steve